What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Democrats starting to get the message? (1 Viewer)

tommyGunZ said:
It's amazing how the idea of making the working poor better off is immediately met with disgust and demand for cuts to their benefits elsewhere by so many. It's pretty clear that on the macro level, one segment of the population believes that the working poor need more, and the other segment believes they are already receiving too much and need cuts to increase motivation.  And people vote accordingly.
Click to expand...
The real head scratcher is how many people who are opposed to public assistance use public assistance and don't even realize it.

"I like the ACA but I hate Obamacare."

 
Chaka said:
So, what then?

Do we just ignore it? Rationalize that it is somehow okay to prop up corporations without propping up citizens?  To hell with the workers and consumers so long as the shareholders get their disbursements?

That isn't sustainable and it almost exclusively leads to ugly outcomes for everyone.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of things that need to be done that won't because the political will isn't there to change it.  This money gets circulated through companies and a portion ends up back into political campaigns.  Without a huge uproar it won't change.

 
The Commish said:
Well, as of today, we have a private market (group and individual) where insurance companies (or large corporations) are put in the position of negotiating prices with pharma companies.  Costs go unchecked and the people who aren't part of an insurance plan get gouged on prices.  Company X wants to average $50 per pill, but insurance has negotiated a lower price at $10 a pill so when the unfortunate come for treatment and don't have insurance they have to pay $90 a pill.  Company X is fine negotiating that price with an insurance company because they know they can make it up elsewhere.  That's the safety net I speak of.  Today, medicare is one of those "plans" where companies will give a concessions because they can make it up on the schmuck who has no power to negotiate.  
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you like to explain this theory to someone who knows nothing about health insurance? "This is the system we've got." 

 
Chaka said:
The real head scratcher is how many people who are opposed to public assistance use public assistance and don't even realize it.

"I like the ACA but I hate Obamacare."
Click to expand...
Public assistance is a pretty big catch-all.  I support lots of types of public assistance, but I don't like to see it wedge people into continued poverty or become a permanent means of living.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would prefer the minimum raises being tied to an actual growth metric...whether it's GDP or whatever. 

$15 seems silly high to me.

 
NCCommish said:
 It would also mean direct raises for 22 million people. 19 million people would be looking at raises as the minimum approached what they are currently paid.
Click to expand...
This is an obvious lie.  Tremendous amounts of these people would lose these jobs and be reduced to zero.  

One thing to consider here is the definition of "living wage".  This is a moving target that will always get ratcheted up as Democrats need the ability to cater to various classes with the victimization schtick.  This cycle will never end.  The other part of the optics here is that consumption by folks in the lower economic bands has exploded (160% increase over 45 years), so part of the living wage that people "need" is just acquiring stuff.

As noted in another thread recently we should raise the minimum wage to about $9.50, tag it to the CPI (as we do for SS) and wipe our hands of this issue.  That's a middle ground that both sides hate, so it's probably about right.

 
eoMMan said:
I would prefer the minimum raises being tied to an actual growth metric...whether it's GDP or whatever. 

$15 seems silly high to me.
Click to expand...
It would be for a lot of cities.

Minimum wage is closely tied to welfare and cost of living, which vary quite a bit across states/cities.  I dont support a national "living wage" because I don't feel it exists.  These are decisions better made at a local level.

 
jonessed said:
It would be for a lot of cities.

Minimum wage is closely tied to welfare and cost of living, which vary quite a bit across states/cities.  I dont support a national "living wage" because I don't feel it exists.  These are decisions better made at a local level.
Click to expand...
Local governments are full of idiots just like all the rest and more corrupt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops said:
Did you read about the part where $15 would be the equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage?
Click to expand...
"The federal minimum wage was first set in 1938 at 25 cents an hour. Had it tracked the cost of living since, it would today be $4.07 an hour, based on Labor Department data and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator (see blue line in the chart above for the year 1938). This is the only logically consistent “historic” value of the minimum wage, and it’s 44% less than the current amount of $7.25.

Advocates of a higher minimum wage arbitrarily selected 1968 as the historical reference point. It’s no wonder: That’s when federal minimum wage hit its inflation-adjusted high point (see chart).

How about picking other arbitrary years to track the minimum wage and inflation? If you used 1948 instead of 1968, the minimum wage’s inflation-adjusted value would only be $3.81 an hour. If you chose 1988, the adjusted minimum wage would be $6.50 an hour."

https://www.aei.org/publication/joe-bidens-flawed-logic-of-a-1968-minimum-wage-hike/

Mic drop?

 
jonessed said:
There are a lot of things that need to be done that won't because the political will isn't there to change it.  This money gets circulated through companies and a portion ends up back into political campaigns.  Without a huge uproar it won't change.
Click to expand...
I agree completely.

But I can't abide the notion that corporate assistance gets a pass, for whatever reason, while people still attack public assistance.

 
jonessed said:
Public assistance is a pretty big catch-all.  I support lots of types of public assistance, but I don't like to see it wedge people into continued poverty or become a permanent means of living.
Click to expand...
It is a big catch all because different people have different issues with it.  My bottom line is it is wrong to attack citizens while giving corporations a pass despite their complicity.

 
Chaka said:
It is a big catch all because different people have different issues with it.  My bottom line is it is wrong to attack citizens while giving corporations a pass despite their complicity.
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone attacking citizens.  We are all attacking policies.

 
jonessed said:
I don't see anyone attacking citizens.  We are all attacking policies.
Click to expand...
And the dismantling of many (most...all?) of those policies will hurt citizens. So...

ETA: And of course if we can modify those policies so people get the same (or better) benefits and the people opposed get whatever they are after then...yadda, yadda, yadda.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eoMMan said:
I would prefer the minimum raises being tied to an actual growth metric...whether it's GDP or whatever. 

$15 seems silly high to me.
Click to expand...
How about productivity? Increased productivity used to mean rising wages. But that hasn't been the case in recent years as companies say screw you we'll move. If the minimum kept up with productivity it would be over 20.00 an hour.

 
Sand said:
This is an obvious lie.  Tremendous amounts of these people would lose these jobs and be reduced to zero.  

One thing to consider here is the definition of "living wage".  This is a moving target that will always get ratcheted up as Democrats need the ability to cater to various classes with the victimization schtick.  This cycle will never end.  The other part of the optics here is that consumption by folks in the lower economic bands has exploded (160% increase over 45 years), so part of the living wage that people "need" is just acquiring stuff.

As noted in another thread recently we should raise the minimum wage to about $9.50, tag it to the CPI (as we do for SS) and wipe our hands of this issue.  That's a middle ground that both sides hate, so it's probably about right.
Click to expand...
No it's not a lie. You still need people to do these jobs and study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs in the long run.

Lastly 9.50 isn't a living wage in any state I've looked at.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
How about productivity? Increased productivity used to mean rising wages. But that hasn't been the case in recent years as companies say screw you we'll move. If the minimum kept up with productivity it would be over 20.00 an hour.
Click to expand...
I don't know. That may be misleading. I feel like a financial measuring stick would be best.

And if companies were forced to pay more via a minimum wage hike, wouldn't they be MORE inclined to say "screw you we'll move"? I could see businesses shutting down, jobs moving overseas, etc.

But I'm not an economist. I don't know the correct answer here.

 
NCCommish said:
No it's not a lie. You still need people to do these jobs and study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs in the long run.

Lastly 9.50 isn't a living wage in any state I've looked at.
Click to expand...
9.50 wasn't intended to be a living wage, but a reasonable minimum wage that could be indexed to inflation and set so we didn't have to squabble over it as those dip####s in congress have never indexed it.

On the first sentence, I don't know what color glasses you're wearing, but hopefully along with the delusions they also have nice side effects like seeing past chick's clothes and the like.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
Lastly 9.50 isn't a living wage in any state I've looked at.
Click to expand...
I don't know about states... most of them have larger cities where the cost of living is higher, and then rural areas where it's lower.

But $9.50 is easily a living wage where I'm at. I have friends who get by on that. I make $15 and have way more than I need. If you set the minimum wage to $15 here, my employer would go out of business instantly.

 
Spartans Rule said:
I don't know about states... most of them have larger cities where the cost of living is higher, and then rural areas where it's lower.

But $9.50 is easily a living wage where I'm at. I have friends who get by on that. I make $15 and have way more than I need. If you set the minimum wage to $15 here, my employer would go out of business instantly.
Click to expand...
Are you single without children?

 
Chaka said:
And the dismantling of many (most...all?) of those policies will hurt citizens. So...

ETA: And of course if we can modify those policies so people get the same (or better) benefits and the people opposed get whatever they are after then...yadda, yadda, yadda.
Click to expand...
That's not attacking citizens though.  If we can't frame policy discussions as policy discussions and not an "attack" on those impacted not much will ever change.

 
Such stupidity. Say goodbye to all those lower level jobs. Machines will be making our food within 2 years after this nonsense happens...so hopefully it won't.

 
Warrior said:
Such stupidity. Say goodbye to all those lower level jobs. Machines will be making our food within 2 years after this nonsense happens...so hopefully it won't.
Click to expand...
Having a higher minimum wage isn't going to be the driving force behind job losses to automation. Improvements in automation will handle that quite nicely on its own and we can't price our human labor low enough to beat it.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Are you single without children?
Click to expand...
Marriage is a choice.  Reproductive activity is a choice.  

Why are we concerned with our responsibility toward the choices others make with their free will?

 
 
My point is you can't use "socialism" as an argument against a proposed law. BTW, I don't like with these examples either. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love how the idea of a 30k income is so egregiously luxurious to a bunch of white guys making 3-5 times that amount playing on a computer message board all day.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
I love how the idea of a 30k income is so egregiously luxurious to a bunch of white guys making 3-5 times that amount playing on a computer message board all day.  
Click to expand...
Who said 30k income is egregiously luxurious?   Supply and demand should determine wages not some artificial floor.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

snogger
I'm starting a new job and looking for insight on leading a team
Replies
37
Views
846
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott
Lehigh98
Suggestions for Where to Book a Reunion / Birthday Weekend in the Northeast in April?
Replies
21
Views
466
zamboni
zamboni
KarmaPolice
The Top 164 (166) Movies of the 21st Century. On to the TOP 10!!
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
43K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top