American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[MarchHare]

Why isn't the minimum wage indexed to inflation and adjusted automatically? You'd need to do some ground work to figure out the appropriate baseline minimum wage for each jurisdiction (it's going to be different in San Francisco vs. rural Mississippi), but after that it should change automatically each year instead of going 13+ years without adjustment.

[activeStick]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1539362698504425472

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why isn't the minimum wage indexed to inflation and adjusted automatically? You'd need to do some ground work to figure out the appropriate baseline minimum wage for each jurisdiction (it's going to be different in San Francisco vs. rural Mississippi), but after that it should change automatically each year instead of going 13+ years without adjustment.

The argument is, is minimum wage federal jurisdiction? Should the federal government mandate a living wage? People forget that while the US has a minimum wage of $7.25, Canada doesn't even have one. It's all done at provincial level. I believe Manitoba has the lowest now at $11.

Canada is just fortunate that the provinces aren't too far apart so the feds don't have to get involved. 12 to 15 is not a stretch. If they had a discrepancy like the US does, from 7.25 to 20, the government would be under pressure to act.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Not sure what you mean about allocation...western countries take a massive disproportion of them, so if we "fix" the allocation, expect less. The amount of them overall is absolutely a problem. Have you looked at what it would take to do this whole "green switch" thing? The Earth can't support it. Raising the standard of living globally is also unsupportable at western standards.

What mechanism fixes the resource scarcity issue?

You mentioned the extreme wealth inequality (ie money) of which there is plenty to go around, it's just stockpiled at Amazon and Disney and Wal Mart and in hedge funds being used to constantly cheat people out of savings.

Global resource allocation, also out of whack. But yes a different animal when you consider the impending environmental cost of billions of people coming out of poverty into middle-class standards of living across the planet.

How much food is produced that is tossed? Our global food supply could certainly be streamlined, but of course would result in sacrifices of taste and preference for the privileged.

How much oil is produced and held in storage, keeping that resource artificially high to the benefit of oil upper management pockets and OPEC country's rulers. You know, everytime something happens that COULD cause a rise in energy prices doesn't mean it HAS TO. Or that those companies can't absorb some of that burden themselves to the tune of not 100's of billions in profits. Maybe just a few less billions for the sake of not run away inflation? A little social responsibility from the most major forces of our planet?

How much energy of sunlight hits the Earth each day (more than our civilization has ever used total). Not being able to harness this is greatest failure of humanity so far IMO. Poor allocation of resource here is technology investment. We can drill down, then sideways, then blast hot steam to crack rock and syphon oil out of solid earth and bring it all the way to the surface, and then turn that substance into everything from plastic bags to consumable food. And we can't catch the sunshine? It's been 100 years of going down the wrong direction. Problem is that energy would eventually be free once tech got good enough to create a self-sustaining energy system. No profit in that.

[burn_this_city]

I don't think anyone is producing oil to store in tanks at this point. All signs point to inventory declining at a pretty steady rate since early 2021. Problem with oil is no one really drilled during 2020, all the chatter at the time was about peak oil demand and new paradigms. When the price went negative in April 2020, people slashed their budgets and laid up 2/3-3/4 of drilling rigs in NA.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Isn't wanting to keep people down and paid below their costs to eke out a meager existence evil just on its face?

I don't understand why conservative people are trying to overcomplicate things. Minimum wage in the USA is too low for people to survive. Basic costs of living exceed what you can make earning minimum wage. Okay, it has to be increased. It's just so fataing simple. To argue it should stay as it is means you are a horrible, indecent human being.

I remember when there was chatter of increasing minimum wage in Alberta to $15 and everybody I know who I considered to be an a-hole thought it shouldn't be increased. Well, it increased and everything was fine, except some people got to live a little better. Oh, the horror.

This post is coming from a local business owner, too. That's really excellent to see.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Is the problem that consumers "don't want to pay" or that they cannot afford to pay.

I'm sure it's a little of both. But when you're barely making enough money to keep a roof over your head, yeah, you're going to look to pay as little as possible for everything. It's the circuitous model that keeps Walmart employees spending their paycheck at Walmart.




Just piggybacking on this because it's part of the conversation that I think gets overlooked in the minimum wage debate.

If all minimum wage jobs are for teenagers, shouldn't we expect fast food places to only be open from 4-9pm? Should grocery stores also be like this? Should you only be able to grab a coffee on your drive home from work but not to?

Early days in the pandemic we lauded these "low skill" jobs as essential but we cannot find a way to make sure these essential jobs keep people fed and clothed and housed?

If we all agree that these jobs should exist, how can we then tell those workers that they deserve to live in poverty?

And re: small businesses, as someone who worked for one for 15 years...oh well. If your business model requires you to keep your employees below a living wage you are a bad business owner. You're bad at it and you shouldn't have a business. You're not entitled to a profit.

This also applies to big businesses, and stopping them would do a lot to help small businesses. Go back to taxing big businesses and the wealthiest earners at 1960s levels and use that money to buoy small businesses through the process of increasing overall wages. Provide tax cuts only to businesses that have a reasonable executive-to-lowest salary discrepancy, which stops Amazon and McDonalds and Walmart from getting tax breaks while they have employees drawing public benefits.

When poor people get more money they spend it, it's been proven time and time again. Lower and middle income earners having more money helps all businesses, including the small ones. And no, a minimum wage increase across the board will not fix all of the problems but it's like the gun debate: you cannot simply do nothing . People are losing their homes, children are going without food. Something has to give and the absolute bare minimum we can do is get the lowest wages up to something slightly dignified. If we hadn't waited 15 years maybe we wouldn't need drastic change.

This was one of the best posts in this thread, but I just wanted to nitpick one line. The bolded is a little antagonistic of people that put everything on the line to make a go of a business and not correct at all, imo.

Most businesses will fail statistically. It takes a lot to put everything on the line and go after it. But there's many amazing, brilliant, hardworking people that go into business and fail. They're not "bad at it and shouldn't have a business", it's just the nature of business and I'm glad so many are willing to at least try.

That's why the key is to regulate a living wage rather than let businesses decide whether to pay one or not. That I'm in support of. I know it's hard enough already to succeed, but paying people a living wage needs to be part of that difficulty, not something you can toss aside to stay afloat.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

There's a distinction to be made between a business that is profitable and could afford to pay employees more but chooses not to and a business where the model requires paying people little because there isn't sufficient revenue to cover higher costs.

I agree, but the end results are still the same for the employee.

The latter doesn't seem like a business owner who is exploiting people so much as a business owner who is struggling to generate enough revenue to cover costs and be prosperous by selling their products/services.

I don’t believe they are intentionally trying to cause hardship to an employee in this case, but again the end result is the same for the employee.

That’s not so different from employees who are struggling to find work that pays well. Employees are also participants in a market, selling their labor and time to generate revenue to cover their costs and hopefully prosper. Telling small business owners with struggling businesses that they just suck, don't deserve to be in business and should close up because they're having a hard time finding sufficient customers to generate revenue and cover their costs is pretty akin to telling an employee that they suck, don't deserve a decent job and should be out of the labor market because they can't find an employer willing to buy their labor and time at a high enough price to cover their costs.

Firstly I never said small business owners who can’t generate enough revenue “just suck”. While it may no doubt be the case in some examples, generally there are a number of other factors to consider for why a business is failing.

With that being said I disagree with comparing a struggling business owner to a low wage worker because at the end of the day no one is forcing you to own a business. Market forces need correcting to account for greed and exploitation. The problem isn’t the struggling small business owner paying minimum wage, it’s the more profitable businesses big and small who pay minimum wage when they can clearly afford to pay more. Small business owners could and should be helped with things like lower taxes or small business grants, but that doesn’t fix low wages at a business that was already in a position to pay more but doesn’t.

The way I see it there are 3 options to address low wages:

1.Increase the minimum wage. This may lead to some businesses struggling and some potential job loses but so far where it has happened the overall economic benefit appears to have outweighed the costs.

2.Introduce a UBI(This often surprises people but for the record I’m not sold on UBI being a good solution) or fund more social programs so people can afford to live off $7.25/hour. To do this we would have to increase taxes on businesses.

3.Make it easier for workers to form Unions so that at least the businesses who are exploiting workers can be addressed.

The problem isn’t figuring out which solution would work best, it’s that the overwhelming majority businesses oppose all 3 options and the most profitable ones pay millions to lobby the government to avoid having any of them become a reality.

I'm not even conservative, but I just don't get the sentiment of having no sympathy for business owners regardless of their circumstances. I agree that exploitative practices intended to leverage or expand power imbalances and profit off the suffering of others should be opposed, I just don't believe that's the nature of all businesses paying low wages. Sentiments that they just suck and should shut down their businesses seem like sentiments presented as humane while actually heartless.

I don’t disagree. One of the most generous employers I ever worked for was a small business. It wasn’t the highest paying job I ever had, not even close. But the owner did his best despite his own struggles to do what he could for his employees. His competitors were primarily massive corporations that paid their employees minimum wage but he still paid his staff more than they did despite earning far less in profits than his competitors.

If the goal is to increase wages which of the 3 options to address low wages listed above would be the most fair to exploited workers and least impactful to a good small business owner like the one in my example and the ones who are legitimately struggling?

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by activeStick

https://twitter.com/user/status/1539362698504425472

Surely we got him this time, right??!?!?!?!

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Guns, guns, more guns. Guns everywhere.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1539982256017756161

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Surely we got him this time, right??!?!?!?!

This time is definitely the time!

On a serious note, I think Giulianni is the one who is gonna really be f'ed here.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by activeStick

This time is definitely the time!

On a serious note, I think Giulianni is the one who is gonna really be f'ed here.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by activeStick

This time is definitely the time!

On a serious note, I think Giulianni is the one who is gonna really be f'ed here.

Please make it so. I hate that guy.

[Dion]

Feds Search Home Of Ex-Trump Official Jeffrey Clark: Reports

Federal investigators searched the home of former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark on Wednesday, according to multiple reports. More than a dozen DOJ law enforcement officials searched Jeff Clark’s house in a pre-dawn raid, put him in the streets in his pajamas, and took his electronic devices.

Clark, who helped cast doubt on Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss, had his Virginia home searched in connection to the DOJ’s investigation into efforts to overturn the presidential election, The New York Times reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

https://www.yahoo.com/video/feds-sea...174357572.html

[activeStick]

Just watched Wandrea ("Shaye") Moss' testimony from the Day 4 Jan 6 hearings. So terrible what Trump's supporters did to her and her family. Trump accused her and her mother (who are both election workers) of pulling fake ballots out of a suitcase in Georgia for Biden. It was proven to be false but the videos and Trump's comments had already spread across Conservative social media. She received threats on the phone. She doesn't even go out anymore because she's do damn scared. Her mom was visited by the FBI who told her she had to leave her own home for her own safety which ended up being 2 months away. Her freaking grandmother was visited by Trump supporters who tried to make a citizens arrest.

But yeah, who cares, right? Nothing's going to happen to Trump anyways, so these hearings shouldn't even happen!

[JohnnyB]

The hearings have been making a powerful case, but with the way FOX and the republican media are it seems doubtful that many of those who need to hear it ever will.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by activeStick

But yeah, who cares, right? Nothing's going to happen to Trump anyways, so these hearings shouldn't even happen!

If the committee doesn't lead to arrests/convictions of any of the ringleaders, then they're essentially just exploiting the suffering of people like these two women for political points.

I would have no issues with the hearings if they actually lead to anything substantial, but the whole thing looks like a dog and pony show.

[Scroopy Noopers]

I don’t know how you can see this going down and being exposed for the history books as unsubstantial.

This hasn’t happened before. And the facts are being laid out for the public. That’s as substantial as it gets, on its own.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If the committee doesn't lead to arrests/convictions of any of the ringleaders, then they're essentially just exploiting the suffering of people like these two women for political points.

I would have no issues with the hearings if they actually lead to anything substantial, but the whole thing looks like a dog and pony show.

The alternative is when the party in power as control of the committees and everything is just swept aside. I prefer documenting the history and exposing it as opposed to it becoming entrenched as part of doing business

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If the committee doesn't lead to arrests/convictions of any of the ringleaders, then they're essentially just exploiting the suffering of people like these two women for political points.

I would have no issues with the hearings if they actually lead to anything substantial, but the whole thing looks like a dog and pony show.

Does Congress have the power to do anything? Serious question.

And it's not wasteful it's their duty to make sure it's investigated and the public is informed and they have the information to enact laws that will prevent this in the future.

The 2nd through 1 millionth Benghazi committee was wasteful and for political points, this is not that.