seattle prattle wrote:
No lefty me wrote:
Agree, except I would amend this to "no more than 33% of our citizenry needs to be going to four-year college." Many community colleges provide an affordable opportunity to learn exactly the trades and technical skills that you advocate.
This was actually one of the points of the book "The Bell Curve" from ~25 years ago: that all work contributes to the community and that it should be valued by everyone. I, for one, occasionally and randomly thank people who are doing work well, particularly (though not only) lower-status work. (This impulse may stem from the years that I worked in such jobs.) Particularly nowadays, when customer-facing service people are literally putting their health on the line to do their jobs, I think they deserve gratitude and respect.
They deserve a living wage, not just the paltry minimum wage set by the federal govt.
That's right. They do. And this is why we all need to do whatever we can to make sure the Democrats win in Georgia.
agip wrote:
This sums up the Dems' problem, from my point of view. They are terrible at politics and the Rs are good at politics.
Dem policies are usually favored over R policies, but the Dems get shot in the back by AOC types. And can't message their way out of a paper bag.
///
The Democrats may be capable of developing good policies, but they stink at communicating them. Carefully worded polling often shows that a majority agree with Democratic proposals to combat systemic racism, address income disparity and reform the health care reimbursement system. But when the masses hear “Defund the Police,” “Occupy Wall Street” and “Medicare for All,” they recoil.
As a liberal living in a small town in Michigan, I can attest that no amount of patient explanation of the actual policy proposals overcomes the impressions left by these sadly worded slogans.
The best thing Democrats could do is stick with their ideas and hire the Lincoln Project folks to sell them. The slick and glitzy slogans that appeal to parts of the coasts may be cool, but they don’t play in Peoria.
Yes. Many people voted for Joe Biden and then voted Republican on the rest of the ballot.
The radical progressives did hurt the party and many democrats got grouped in with them. Trump tried to make Biden into a radical progressive but it didn't take.
You left out the progressive self branding as socialist democrat. The Republicans feasted on that.
Real Obvi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
They deserve a living wage, not just the paltry minimum wage set by the federal govt.
Quite possibly. But the minimum wage concept is not a very good way to go about it. If "society" believes that everyone deserves a certain level of income then society should provide it - not warp the workings of the marketplace to only partially accomplish the goal by placing a minimum level of pay for work.
Are you advocating for minimum basic income?
I think that's a possible solution but we really don't know how well it works yet. Time will tell as more localities are running experiments with it.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
agip wrote:
This sums up the Dems' problem, from my point of view. They are terrible at politics and the Rs are good at politics.
Dem policies are usually favored over R policies, but the Dems get shot in the back by AOC types. And can't message their way out of a paper bag.
///
The Democrats may be capable of developing good policies, but they stink at communicating them. Carefully worded polling often shows that a majority agree with Democratic proposals to combat systemic racism, address income disparity and reform the health care reimbursement system. But when the masses hear “Defund the Police,” “Occupy Wall Street” and “Medicare for All,” they recoil.
As a liberal living in a small town in Michigan, I can attest that no amount of patient explanation of the actual policy proposals overcomes the impressions left by these sadly worded slogans.
The best thing Democrats could do is stick with their ideas and hire the Lincoln Project folks to sell them. The slick and glitzy slogans that appeal to parts of the coasts may be cool, but they don’t play in Peoria.
Yes. Many people voted for Joe Biden and then voted Republican on the rest of the ballot.
The radical progressives did hurt the party and many democrats got grouped in with them. Trump tried to make Biden into a radical progressive but it didn't take.
You left out the progressive self branding as socialist democrat. The Republicans feasted on that.
Biden did win Peoria!
While I agree that the Dems' policies appear to be more popular when looked at on their own, government intrusion just isn't "the American Way" no matter how much actual intrusion there is or how popular it happens to be. The GOP will always have an advantage here, being the "Get government's hands off my Medicare!" party.
Interesting how the GOP is perceived to be the "capitalist" party. Capitalism is all about change and reducing labor costs and GOP voters seem to both hate change and want protectionism to secure artificially high-paying jobs. Trump's initial success may have been to key in on this contradiction and exploit it.
To be fair, a lot of government spending is very questionable at best. The Zumwalt destroyers for one. A lot of local transportation projects for another. Subway and rail costs in this country are astronomical - European and Asian countries do their trains far cheaper. The Boston Big Dig was way over budget. The Seattle Boring project was a fiasco. A lot of people see that, especially all the local stuff, and don't think the government has any capability, which they apply to all affairs, even in cases where the government can be effective, which gives the GOP a natural advantage.
“Mango Mussolini” - these people are relentless but he is the gift that keeps on giving :(
https://twitter.com/thedemcoalition/status/1327993430388191233?s=21
zephito wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
Yes. Many people voted for Joe Biden and then voted Republican on the rest of the ballot.
The radical progressives did hurt the party and many democrats got grouped in with them. Trump tried to make Biden into a radical progressive but it didn't take.
You left out the progressive self branding as socialist democrat. The Republicans feasted on that.
Biden did win Peoria!
While I agree that the Dems' policies appear to be more popular when looked at on their own, government intrusion just isn't "the American Way" no matter how much actual intrusion there is or how popular it happens to be. The GOP will always have an advantage here, being the "Get government's hands off my Medicare!" party.
Interesting how the GOP is perceived to be the "capitalist" party. Capitalism is all about change and reducing labor costs and GOP voters seem to both hate change and want protectionism to secure artificially high-paying jobs. Trump's initial success may have been to key in on this contradiction and exploit it.
To be fair, a lot of government spending is very questionable at best. The Zumwalt destroyers for one. A lot of local transportation projects for another. Subway and rail costs in this country are astronomical - European and Asian countries do their trains far cheaper. The Boston Big Dig was way over budget. The Seattle Boring project was a fiasco. A lot of people see that, especially all the local stuff, and don't think the government has any capability, which they apply to all affairs, even in cases where the government can be effective, which gives the GOP a natural advantage.
Just more examples of what I’ve been pointing to. It’s much easier to do nothing and often impede than to try and fail once in a while. The GOP figured it out sooner - side more openly with the interest groups, conveniently go along with voters on the hands-off government approach (hey they got a pass!), sit back and just point the finger when Dems inevitably falter. No wonder we are sliding down at warp speed.
Fat hurts wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
They deserve a living wage, not just the paltry minimum wage set by the federal govt.
That's right. They do. And this is why we all need to do whatever we can to make sure the Democrats win in Georgia.
I'm not sure about a high minimum wage. It seems that if you raise wages too far above the natural market minimum you're going to get unemployment among those who can least afford that. I agree that there are some cases where it can actually boost employment (small towns with one or two major, low-wage employers, who would be forced to give everyone a pay hike or leave town and where higher wages might bring more people into the workforce) so I'm not violently against it or anything. Seattle raised theirs a few years ago - it seemed to have some mixed effects (low wage employees got a raise but worked fewer hours). I wonder if the current low minimum wage contributed to the low unemployment (<4%) we had over the last few years.
I do think wage inequality is a problem. From what I know I think either a wage subsidy or a UBI might make more sense to address this. I am by no means an economist and am open to other opinions.
Flagpole wrote:
Just Wundrin wrote:
You are Flagpole. It is embarrassing to witness your terribly pathetic attempts to pretend otherwise.
Nope, that person is not me.
WEJO, DO AN IP CHECK, AND IF I AM THE SAME POSTER AS SMART POSTER, BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK
I am sure that all of the brainless ones on here believe you. Perhaps that is your target audience.
Fat hurts wrote:
Real Obvi wrote:
Quite possibly. But the minimum wage concept is not a very good way to go about it. If "society" believes that everyone deserves a certain level of income then society should provide it - not warp the workings of the marketplace to only partially accomplish the goal by placing a minimum level of pay for work.
Are you advocating for minimum basic income?
I think that's a possible solution but we really don't know how well it works yet. Time will tell as more localities are running experiments with it.
Fair question.
I have to admit that I do not have all the answers. But I would suggest that three ways of ensuring that everyone has enough to live a healthy life (with good individual decision making) while warping the market less than the minimum wage approach are 1) minimum basic income, 2) expansion of the earned income tax credit and 3) universal health care (medicare for all if folks want to call it that).
1) Minimum basic income - we should be running meaningful experiments on this concept
2) Earned income tax credit - I believe that his works well while recognizing it is not the answer to all issues
3) Universal health care - Ignoring the political obstacles for a the moment, it strikes me as obvious that we should move to this without delay.
zephito wrote:
I'm not sure about a high minimum wage. It seems that if you raise wages too far above the natural market minimum you're going to get unemployment among those who can least afford that.
There seems to be no "natural" market maximum in regards to executive pay, stock options, and perks.
Real Obvi wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Are you advocating for minimum basic income?
I think that's a possible solution but we really don't know how well it works yet. Time will tell as more localities are running experiments with it.
Fair question.
I have to admit that I do not have all the answers. But I would suggest that three ways of ensuring that everyone has enough to live a healthy life (with good individual decision making) while warping the market less than the minimum wage approach are 1) minimum basic income, 2) expansion of the earned income tax credit and 3) universal health care (medicare for all if folks want to call it that).
1) Minimum basic income - we should be running meaningful experiments on this concept
2) Earned income tax credit - I believe that his works well while recognizing it is not the answer to all issues
3) Universal health care - Ignoring the political obstacles for a the moment, it strikes me as obvious that we should move to this without delay.
Agree with all of that.
The main advantage of raising the minimum wage is that it's relatively easy to get passed in congress or at the state or local level.
An outlet for the forgotten to take on the elites ?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rebekah-mercer-funding-parler-social-074114765.html
Fat hurts wrote:
Real Obvi wrote:
Fair question.
I have to admit that I do not have all the answers. But I would suggest that three ways of ensuring that everyone has enough to live a healthy life (with good individual decision making) while warping the market less than the minimum wage approach are 1) minimum basic income, 2) expansion of the earned income tax credit and 3) universal health care (medicare for all if folks want to call it that).
1) Minimum basic income - we should be running meaningful experiments on this concept
2) Earned income tax credit - I believe that his works well while recognizing it is not the answer to all issues
3) Universal health care - Ignoring the political obstacles for a the moment, it strikes me as obvious that we should move to this without delay.
Agree with all of that.
The main advantage of raising the minimum wage is that it's relatively easy to get passed in congress or at the state or local level.
Fair point
Ciro wrote:
An outlet for the forgotten to take on the elites ?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rebekah-mercer-funding-parler-social-074114765.html
It will fall flat in growing to a respectable number of users, but will be very successful in taking money from them fools
made it wrote:
zephito wrote:
I'm not sure about a high minimum wage. It seems that if you raise wages too far above the natural market minimum you're going to get unemployment among those who can least afford that.
There seems to be no "natural" market maximum in regards to executive pay, stock options, and perks.
Yes there is. It's just higher than what you would want. If someone asked for $500 billion per year and wouldn't accept anything less, (s)he wouldn't have a job.
There seems to be increasing wage inequality in this country. I think it would be good to mitigate that, through either a wage subsidy or a UBI. Those would have to be paid for via taxes on higher incomes. However, it doesn't change the fact that making the minimum wage too high will increase unemployment. Whether $15/hr will do that, I don't know and said as much in the previous post. Maybe the $15/hr would be good overall! But at a certain level it's going to cause bad effects that defeat its purpose. Companies will start laying workers off and investing in labor-saving equipment and practices. Or there will be inflation. Something would have to give.
This guy must post here
https://twitter.com/johnwdean/status/1328043787248050177?s=21
But those idiots bought some more some of my awful music. LOLz, trumpers love to be conned