The New American Politics thread

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't think I could ever be convinced that a high, universal, national minimum wage is a good tool for helping the economy. There are so many pitfalls to it. First of all, there is no way that the minimum wage in Mississippi should be the same as the minimum wage in New York City. Sure, the New York McDonald's and Walmarts could probably absorb a $15 minimum wage. Restaurants and other businesses in Mississippi would either trim staff or go under. It would absolutely lead to lower employment and higher prices. If prices go up, then people aren't really any more wealthy.

Restaurants with tipped staff have a separate minimum wage anyway, minimum wage for servers in most of the US is below $3/hr. Beyond that, how is it possible that many other countries are capable of a $10, $12 minimum wage and plenty of businesses do just fine?

When people have more money, people spend more money. When someone making $7.25 an hour suddenly makes $10 an hour, that person goes out to dinner more often. That person then can buy a new car or make needed repairs on their older car. That person can then go on vacation to Mississippi and spend money at those restaurants.

It doesn't have to jump to $15 overnight, and it's unlikely to go that high. But to make it $12 across the board by 2020, and then link the minimum wage to the rate of inflation? How is that a crazy idea? $7.25 buys a lot less now than it did when it was instated. If politicians can get a Cost of Living increase every year--why can't average Americans have the same?

A 19 year old teenager is happy as can be making 9-10$ an hour in most parts of the country. A $15 minimum wage would basically take that job away from them.

1) Minimum wage is not 9-10 per hour federally. Some states/communities are at that or higher, but federal mandate is 7.25.

2) Nearly half of minimum wage workers are over the age of 24. These are not teenagers working to make a little extra spending money. These are people with children and apartments and car payments who cannot survive while their employers are paying CEOs millions annually.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-s...-minimum-wage/

3) Unemployment among youth workers--specifically black youth--is far higher than the actual unemployment rate (young black male unemployment rate, as of last July, was over 20%). Unemployment among youth is already high.

Don't forget there are already some anti poverty tools in the current tax code. A single mom making $10 an hour with a couple kids, doesn't pay any income taxes and gets about $4000-$5000 back at tax time due to things like the earned income credit.

I'm sure that $4000 refund in April is really helpful in November when the car needs new tires or in September when kids need clothes for school. Raise the minimum wage to a reasonable number and that woman can afford things all year, not just in April.

While I can buy into the argument that executive compensation has got out of control, you lose me when you say things like record corporate profits are an evil thing. Corporations aren't some evil beast. They are mostly made up of regular people's retirement funds. Corporations doing well is generally good for everyone.

Corporations are welcome to profits if they'd like. But if those profits are made while their employees are depending on welfare to make ends meet--that's not acceptable. If a corporation cannot turn a profit while fairly paying their employees, is that really a successful business model?

Socialistic type policies have pitfalls, and that can't really be denied. it doesn't mean that none of them should be done or considered. But the further you go down that road, the riskier the consequences become.

Unfettered socialism is obviously an issue. But clearly unfettered capitalism isn't doing anyone favors either. Sanders' brand of socialism is about reigning in the excesses of Wall Street and the corporate world to keep them from walking all over the poor and turning the middle class into the poor.

Again, I doubt that the end game is for $20 minimum wage by 2018 or free college for everyone immediately or for limiting CEO pay dramatically. The end game is likely a $12 min wage by 2020 and linking it to inflation in the future, for perhaps some community colleges to be free, state schools to be limited in their costs to something reasonable, and private universities can continue to charge what they please (though they'll likely have to come closer into line with state schools to compete). Perhaps limiting CEO pay to something like 100x what the lowest paid employee makes--doesn't stop the CEO from getting a raise, but it stops the CEO from taking a raise while leaving its lowest employees in the lurch.

I think there is a big chunk of independents who'd think like me and probably wouldn't vote for Sanders. If I was allowed to vote, I don't know what I would do if the choices were Sanders or one of the crazy republicans. I generally lean toward democrats mostly for social issues, but if they do go full Sanders, I don't think I could get behind that.

So what are the options? "Full Sanders" or a Republican who wants to start another war the country can't afford, who wants to take social issues back to 1950, who is all too happy to close the EPA and climate change be damned?

Sanders isn't likely to be able to pass the extreme parts of his presidential plan, because the GOP likely will control the House and/or Senate for at last most of his term. Any GOP candidate with a crazy idea is likely to get that idea passed because he's got lots of support behind him.

Not to mention the part about bringing in probably 2 new SCOTUS judges in those four years. I do not want any one of the GOP candidates choosing a justice that'll likely be making major decisions for this country for the next 20+ years.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm sure your anecdote is straight across the board applicable to the State Department.

As both the previous secretary of states had apparently made the same arrangement I suspect it probably had way more to do with the mundane inadequacies of the state dept system than you think.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

What is your point? Peter is talking about the email issue and you're trying to change the subject.

Except that they are connected. That is the whole point of the exercise. The Republicans couldn't get Clinton through 8 different committees, so they have taken a different angle and are now focusing on something that has been done in the past.

I tried to show a similar connection between the Republican abuses of email systems and that was ignored as well. The Bush White House used the RNC servers to move information with various classification labels and got caught. Karl Rove then deleted 22 million emails from that system to cover their tracks. The Attorney General had knowledge of this and did not take action against the administration. But this is ignored and we're left talking about Clinton and 20 some emails with labels that may or may not have been applied prior to transmission. The whole thing is ridiculous and politically motivated, especially when almost every candidate on the campaign trail has been using private email in the execution of their duties as well.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Azure

What is your point? Peter is talking about the email issue and you're trying to change the subject.

Hillary...........witch hunt.
I connected the dots in case you still miss it.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

When people have more money, people spend more money. When someone making $7.25 an hour suddenly makes $10 an hour, that person goes out to dinner more often. . . .

Sure, provided that their wages have been raised in isolation and no one else's wages have risen equally.

Because if everyone who was making $7.25/hr is now making $10/hr, nothing has really changed relative to the past, except that overall labor costs have now increased.

Regardless, you've raised many of these points before (see post #2785 in this thread), and as I remarked then, although in theory your proposal sounds promising and uplifting to all, in reality the poor will always be among us and there will always be a bottom 10% of anything.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I'm sure that $4000 refund in April is really helpful in November when the car needs new tires or in September when kids need clothes for school. Raise the minimum wage to a reasonable number and that woman can afford things all year, not just in April.

Or the woman could learn how to budget properly and set aside monies received now (or in April) for future expenses that may arise in September or November or next year....

Some people live paycheck to paycheck not because they don't earn enough money, but because they spend too much and they don't know how to budget properly. Sounds harsh, but the truth hurts.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Sure, provided that their wages have been raised in isolation and no one else's wages have risen equally.

Because if everyone who was making $7.25/hr is now making $10/hr, nothing has really changed relative to the past, except that overall labor costs have now increased.

Regardless, you've raised many of these points before (see post #2785 in this thread), and as I remarked then, although in theory your proposal sounds promising and uplifting to all, in reality the poor will always be among us and there will always be a bottom 10% of anything.



Or the woman could learn how to budget properly and set aside monies received now (or in April) for future expenses that may arise in September or November or next year....

Some people live paycheck to paycheck not because they don't earn enough money, but because they spend too much and they don't know how to budget properly. Sounds harsh, but the truth hurts.

Eventually if you keep the wages down as big business is doing, it will bite them in the rear end when these employees can't afford the products that these companies produce or sell. The gap between the poor and the rich is increasing at an alarming rate and it needs a limit. Henry Ford understood this when he paid his employees enough to buy one of his cars.

So this was Ford’s theory: Companies had an interest in ensuring that their employees could afford the products they produced. Put another way, employers had a role to play in boosting consumption. While paying higher wages than you absolutely needed to might lower profits temporarily, it would lead to a more sustainable business and economy over time. If the motorcar was going to be a mass-produced product for typical Americans, not a plaything for the rich, Ford would strive to pay his workers enough so they could afford the products they worked on all day.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...re-profit.html

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Or the woman could learn how to budget properly and set aside monies received now (or in April) for future expenses that may arise in September or November or next year....

Some people live paycheck to paycheck not because they don't earn enough money, but because they spend too much and they don't know how to budget properly. Sounds harsh, but the truth hurts.

Yes but those people who spend too much but make enough aren't the ones that need help or in pvoerty. If a person is above or below the poverty line is based on total yearly income and has NOTHING to do with how or when that income comes in just the total amount.

The academic world has studies this among cities and states that have elevated minimum wages. There is very little change to employment in the end and the hardest price impact is restaurants that end up with a 2-3% price hike for every 25% increase in minimum wage. Yes there will always be a bottom 10% that's how percentiles work...but what percentile the poverty line falls will indeed change.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Lol well he was off Twitter for like 12 hours after losing, so at least it shut him up a little.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Sure, provided that their wages have been raised in isolation and no one else's wages have risen equally.

Because if everyone who was making $7.25/hr is now making $10/hr, nothing has really changed relative to the past, except that overall labor costs have now increased.

Regardless, you've raised many of these points before (see post #2785 in this thread), and as I remarked then, although in theory your proposal sounds promising and uplifting to all, in reality the poor will always be among us and there will always be a bottom 10% of anything.

So just keep people at 7.25 forever, regardless of inflation, regardless of rising costs for energy/water/gas/rent/mortgage? If you raise the lowest wage--you raise other wages too. When more people make more money, those people spend money, using it at businesses locally, when those businesses are busier, they make more money, they need to hire more staff.

Show me an example of trickle-down economics working? We've been trying it since GWB took office, and the wealthy are getting wealthier, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is shrinking and falling into a lower economic state.

Or the woman could learn how to budget properly and set aside monies received now (or in April) for future expenses that may arise in September or November or next year....

Some people live paycheck to paycheck not because they don't earn enough money, but because they spend too much and they don't know how to budget properly. Sounds harsh, but the truth hurts.

I'm not saying that everyone is capable of proper budgeting, and this isn't about making sure everyone's poor choices are covered (though we sure saved the banks from their poor decision making and destroying the global economy, and we sure make it okay to cover for guys like Trump when they make poor investments and have to declare bankruptcy). This is about giving everyone something resembling an even playing field. Ensuring that everyone has the ability to pay their bills, the ability to obtain higher education, the ability to have proper access to healthcare.

There are also a whole lot of people who budget that 7.25/hour meticulously--but then they get sick, or their car breaks down, or some other unforeseen issue that has nothing to do with their level of responsibility happens, and that 7.25 that they were squeaking by on isn't nearly enough, and when only making 7.25 an hour, you're incapable of putting away a savings to buffer against problems like that.

Even if you bump that to 9/hour, that means someone is making 16,640 in a year. That means take home pay, after taxes is short of 1200/month. If that person has rent to pay of let's say 700 (which is low for a lot of places in the US), they have $500 left. Gotta pay utilities, say that's another $100 so they have $400 left. If they avoid owning a car a bus pass runs nearly $100/mo so they have $300. If they have a student loan payment, that's probably another $100+. Not to mention buying food and paying a cell phone bill (because who can honestly get by without a phone?). What money exactly are they supposed to "set aside" and "budget" for when things go wrong? And that's assuming that person is single/childless and can manage a 1br apartment. (And if they're single/childless, all that nice happy big tax return stuff doesn't apply.)

Wages in the US have been stagnant for a long time, well beyond just those making minimum wage. CEO pay has exploded while wages for the average American have remained stagnant. These companies are still making plenty of money, but they're refusing to pass it on to those working to make that money for them. Rather than pay their employees, they spend that money on lobbying politicians to keep them from making a minimum wage increase, from placing stricter workplace laws, from enforcing EPA regulations, etc. They have the money, but they use it for their own interests, while telling their employees they can't afford to give raises.

Don't want to raise the minimum wage? Fine. Allow all workers to unionize. Then they can negotiate their own fair wages. Oh, but wait, more and more states are becoming "right to work" states, which takes bargaining power away from the workers and gives all of that to the employers, who can then in turn pay their workers lower wages because employees have no way of representing themselves.

Employees and the working class need to have a voice, but that voice is being stifled by big money, and it has been made far worse with the passing of Citizens United. Sanders wants to overturn Citizens United, and if he makes it into office and only accomplishes that--his term would be pretty successful.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Eventually if you keep the wages down as big business is doing, it will bite them in the rear end when these employees can't afford the products that these companies produce or sell. The gap between the poor and the rich is increasing at an alarming rate and it needs a limit. Henry Ford understood this when he paid his employees enough to buy one of his cars.

Consider Ford used to be the biggest employer in America, and the wages they paid, and now it is Walmart and the wages they pay. That's the free enterprise the Republicans love, don't know why they keep blaming Obama for the stagnant household incomes.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Henry Ford understood this when he paid his employees enough to buy one of his cars.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...re-profit.html

Your statement and the Daily Beast's interpretation of Ford's decision is an inaccurate understanding of history.

Ford didn't raise wages so that his employees could afford the products they were making.

Ford raised wages to reduce employee turnover.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#60fcb3971c96

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by ernie

Yes but those people who spend too much . . . .

Respectfully, I'm having difficulty following your post.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Your statement and the Daily Beast's interpretation of Ford's decision is an inaccurate understanding of history.

Ford didn't raise wages so that his employees could afford the products they were making.

Ford raised wages to reduce employee turnover.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#60fcb3971c96

That was part of the reason, yes but it doesn't explain his doubling the wage. He could have solved that problem with a raise of say 50cents.

I had to laugh at the Boeing employee needing to make enough to buy a jetliner though. Maybe enough to buy a ticket would be more fitting or a Walmart employee making enough to buy a pair of jeans.

[Vulcan]

Rand Paul drops out.

'Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty,' the Kentucky senator said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz3z7Tpno2j

[Coach]

Honestly, I thought Paul was the best of the Republican Candidates. Actually seems relatively sane.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

That was part of the reason, yes but it doesn't explain his doubling the wage. He could have solved that problem with a raise of say 50cents.

I had to laugh at the Boeing employee needing to make enough to buy a jetliner though. Maybe enough to buy a ticket would be more fitting or a Walmart employee making enough to buy a pair of jeans.

Does that include the people making the jeans? Or just the greeters?

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Honestly, I thought Paul was the best of the Republican Candidates. Actually seems relatively sane.

That was his problem

[2Stonedbirds]

Too bad, Paul was the only republican candidate speaking sense on issues like the national debt, the ongoing war for profit, and addressing rights of Americans.

It's going to come down to giant ###### and turd sandwich once again.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

So just keep people at 7.25 forever, regardless of inflation, regardless of rising costs for energy/water/gas/rent/mortgage?

I think that we have been over this before, and, quite frankly, I don't have the time or inclination to rehash my response(s) again.

But--in short--minimum wage jobs are not intended to be lifetime jobs; they are intended to be starter and stepping-stone jobs. Accordingly, the fact that energy/water/gas/rent/mortgage costs increase should have a very limited bearing on what the pay is for a minimum wage job is at any given time.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

If you raise the lowest wage--you raise other wages too.

Uh, no., not necessarily.

If the minimum wage were to increase from $7.25/hr to, say, $10 or $15 an hour, I'm pretty sure that my salary would not increase as well.

But my costs most certainly would.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

When more people make more money, those people spend money, using it at businesses locally, when those businesses are busier, they make more money, they need to hire more staff.

And maybe that's the problem.

Instead of spending more money simply because they make more money, they should save more money because they now have more money.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Show me an example of trickle-down economics working? We've been trying it since GWB took office, and the wealthy are getting wealthier, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is shrinking and falling into a lower economic state.

I think that you may be confusing the economics of minimum wage with the "trickle-down economics" concept.

I don't think that the two are necessarily connected, as the latter deals more with tax policy and the former deals with wage allocation.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I'm not saying that everyone is capable of proper budgeting, and this isn't about making sure everyone's poor choices are covered (though we sure saved the banks from their poor decision making and destroying the global economy, and we sure make it okay to cover for guys like Trump when they make poor investments and have to declare bankruptcy).

Bankruptcy is available to all insolvents, not just the high-profile ones.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

This is about giving everyone something resembling an even playing field. Ensuring that everyone has the ability to pay their bills, the ability to obtain higher education, the ability to have proper access to healthcare.

Everyone already has that ability.

I'm not aware of anyone who is prohibited or restricted from paying their bills, going to college, or accessing health care.

If they can't, for example, pay their bills because they don't have any money, then they need to reduce their bills. And the simplest way to do that is by spending less money to create the bills in the first place.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

There are also a whole lot of people who budget that 7.25/hour meticulously . . .

Look, I sorta get where you are coming from, but at the same time, I really don't have a lot of sympathy.

I made it through college and law school purely on academic scholarships, work study (which paid even less than minimum wage), and student loans. I lived a very spartan lifestyle and survived off of beans and rice and peanut butter for years. And when it was all over, I was still able to save money from my student loans, and within five years from graduating from law school I had paid back all of my student loans (which totaled over six figures in amount). If I can do it, I don't really see why the majority of others can't do it either.

So here's how I see it: life is all about choices. If someone really doesn't want to be "poor" and live paycheck-to-paycheck, then they will do what it takes to not do so. Sometimes that requires sacrifices, and it will likely require some hardship and a good bit of discipline.

But it most certainly does not require reallocating money and earnings from one group of people to another group of people. Because, by doing so, you aren't really solving anything. You are just moving money around and appearing to "do something," when you really aren't doing anything at all.

And what are you going to do when there is no more money left to take from someone else?

Originally Posted by wittynickname

They have the money, but they use it for their own interests . . .

Well, yeah, of course they do.

Just like you use your money to advance your own interests.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Don't want to raise the minimum wage? Fine. Allow all workers to unionize. Then they can negotiate their own fair wages.

Shrug.

That's fine with me, I suppose.

Of course, the union will require dues to be paid, which they will then use to advance their own interests (which I guess is suddenly okay in your book).

And if the now-unionized workers aren't particularly skilled or specialized (or even if they are, like, say, an air-traffic controller is), the employer could likely just replace any striking and/or negotiating workers with a new set of employees.

Which makes me wonder just what benefit(s) the workers get from being able to unionize, but, hey, life is all about choices.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

That was part of the reason, yes but it doesn't explain his doubling the wage. He could have solved that problem with a raise of say 50cents.

I suppose that he could have, but his turnover would still exist (but perhaps at not quite such a high rate).

But, as I understand it, Ford was a moralist, and liked to control the private lives of his workers. And although assembly-line work was difficult and taxing, people will put up with a lot for a wage that is double what it once was and is (I believe) higher than what they could get elsewhere.

Doubling wages was a bold step that allowed Ford to immediately recruit and retain "better" workers. Merely increasing wages by, say, 50 cents would not have had the same (or any real) impact, as most of Ford's competitors could have likely matched the increase.