POLITICAL BLOTTER

[bsbll4]

If my experience in discussing this is any indicator, many truly believe, and there are (flawed) studies to back up, that increasing minimum wage won't cost any jobs. And since the CBO report says the $15 minimum wage will cost anywhere between zero and 4 million jobs, they can hang their hat on the zero.

Of course, most can't explain why $15, nor why not $25, but there is, in many, a rigid belief there is no cost to doing this.

This is my exact thought. Why have we settled on $15/hr? If it's that simple, let's just mandate a $30/hr wage and get everyone to the "middle class" overnight. If it doesn't hurt anyone and it's only a positive effect, why not do it?

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

This is my exact thought. Why have we settled on $15/hr? If it's that simple, let's just mandate a $30/hr wage and get everyone to the "middle class" overnight. If it doesn't hurt anyone and it's only a positive effect, why not do it?

It's built into any proposal that they know it hurts. Because, "Why not $35 an hour?" is dismissed, and they implement it over time. That is a tacit admission that it can have negative effects.

I had an epiphany during the election. I don't know if you remember, I think, MSNBC putting up a tweet after Bloomberg dropped out that claimed that for whatever he had spent, he could have just given everyone, like, a million dollars. IN reality, it's about a buck fifty.

Anyway, in a group text, a far lefty friend of ours just could not understand the math and finally just gave up and believed us that it did not work out to a million dollars for each American.

This is how you get people to believe that if we just tax the wealth of billionaires, we can spend as much money on all the things as we could ever possibly want.

I think it is indicative of how people can think that business owners are Scrooge McDuck surfing on their gold riches and there's nothing disruptive about significantly raising their labor costs.

[rocknblues81]

It's concerning to me because SCOTUS traditionally does not lead on issues, it goes as society goes. So when we were less tolerant of dissent, you got decisions that allowed punishment for dissenting opinions on the draft.

Today, we have a broad interpretation of free speech. But I am afraid if some cases get to the Supreme Court, if history is any indication, we may move backwards.

lol. We're already moving backwards.

[rocknblues81]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama...ign=benshapiro

Obama and Springsteen think they represent unity and that "white resistance" is the only thing preventing race based reparations.

In other words, agree with us or you're a bigot. That's what unity is to Democrats. Obedience to their belief system is "unity".

We see hear this and we see all of these anti white corporate measures...

Yeah, unity.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

I wish Republicans would be more directional in their thinking, because it seems like you risk something worse by not offering a reasonable alternative. If you deny climate change, you get the Paris agreement. If you don't draw a line between confederates and founding fathers, you get both canceled.

And if you don't make the case that reparations need to be paid to people who actually experienced a grievance and not their ancestors, you get slavery-based reparations. AND you get the added bonus that people say your opposition is racial.

A better proposal is reparations for anyone who is Black and was alive prior to the Civil Rights Act. You were legislated as a second-class citizen, thus your rights were violated and you get compensated for that. Sure, that isn't true of every person in every state, but you can only prove so much. But at least that is a tangible reparation, much like Reagan and those Japanese Americans who had actually been in an internment camp.

I fear by taking a hardcore, opposite stance, you end up giving more up, and yielding a worse result.

[Dave's Dreidel]

I wish Republicans would be more directional in their thinking, because it seems like you risk something worse by not offering a reasonable alternative. If you deny climate change, you get the Paris agreement. If you don't draw a line between confederates and founding fathers, you get both canceled.

And if you don't make the case that reparations need to be paid to people who actually experienced a grievance and not their ancestors, you get slavery-based reparations. AND you get the added bonus that people say your opposition is racial.

A better proposal is reparations for anyone who is Black and was alive prior to the Civil Rights Act. You were legislated as a second-class citizen, thus your rights were violated and you get compensated for that. Sure, that isn't true of every person in every state, but you can only prove so much. But at least that is a tangible reparation, much like Reagan and those Japanese Americans who had actually been in an internment camp.

I fear by taking a hardcore, opposite stance, you end up giving more up, and yielding a worse result.

Might be the best post you have ever had.

[CaboChris]

I wish Republicans would be more directional in their thinking, because it seems like you risk something worse by not offering a reasonable alternative. If you deny climate change, you get the Paris agreement. If you don't draw a line between confederates and founding fathers, you get both canceled.

And if you don't make the case that reparations need to be paid to people who actually experienced a grievance and not their ancestors, you get slavery-based reparations. AND you get the added bonus that people say your opposition is racial.

A better proposal is reparations for anyone who is Black and was alive prior to the Civil Rights Act. You were legislated as a second-class citizen, thus your rights were violated and you get compensated for that. Sure, that isn't true of every person in every state, but you can only prove so much. But at least that is a tangible reparation, much like Reagan and those Japanese Americans who had actually been in an internment camp.

I fear by taking a hardcore, opposite stance, you end up giving more up, and yielding a worse result.

Another wish is that Republicans would at least act like they give a fuck about poor people.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

Another wish is that Republicans would at least act like they give a fuck about poor people.

Their messaging is terrible.

There’s a way to compromise AND get your ideas out there and present them in a way that seems like you care.

“If mandating high wages made people wealthier, we’d have solved poverty long ago. The reality is that it’s more complicated than that, and we support many reforms that will help the poorest amongst us reach their full earning potential.

Minimum wage is but one of those reforms, and we support a minimum wage that takes into account the local economies and local unemployment rates where communities can best maximize the number of people who are helped.

The reason Democrats don’t offer a $25 minimum wage or a $50 minimum wage is because there are negative trade offs when you increase the price of labor. Period.

San Francisco, CA may be able to support much higher than a $15 minimum wage with few negative effects. But Barstow, CA, with high unemployment, increasing the price of something drastically is not the way to get people to buy more of it. The negative effects outweigh the wage increase.

So we support a $10 national minimum wage, indexed to inflation. We believe most of America can at least do that for our friends and family members working so hard to make ends meet. And we call on local communities who know those friends and families best to adjust that higher if they believe that best suits their community, that the trade offs are worth it.

We hope that by meeting halfway with this sensible offer, Democrats will work with us to remove archaic, ineffective red tape that gets between you and your employer paying you more, money that is otherwise wasted in complying with rules that don’t make sense.

Together, we can make the future brighter for those of us that have difficulty seeing light at the end of the tunnel.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bsbll4]

Their messaging is terrible.

There’s a way to compromise AND get your ideas out there and present them in a way that seems like you care.

“If mandating high wages made people wealthier, we’d have solved poverty long ago. The reality is that it’s more complicated than that, and we support many reforms that will help the poorest amongst us reach their full earning potential.

Minimum wage is but one of those reforms, and we support a minimum wage that takes into account the local economies and local unemployment rates where communities can best maximize the number of people who are helped.

The reason Democrats don’t offer a $25 minimum wage or a $50 minimum wage is because there are negative trade offs when you increase the price of labor. Period.

San Francisco, CA may be able to support much higher than a $15 minimum wage with few negative effects. But Barstow, CA, with high unemployment, increasing the price of something drastically is not the way to get people to buy more of it. The negative effects outweigh the wage increase.

So we support a $10 national minimum wage, indexed to inflation. We believe most of America can at least do that for our friends and family members working so hard to make ends meet. And we call on local communities who know those friends and families best to adjust that higher if they believe that best suits their community, that the trade offs are worth it.

We hope that by meeting halfway with this sensible offer, Democrats will work with us to remove archaic, ineffective red tape that gets between you and your employer paying you more, money that is otherwise wasted in complying with rules that don’t make sense.

Together, we can make the future brighter for those of us that have difficulty seeing light at the end of the tunnel.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could have someone say that (which is great btw), and the headline would be:

"Republicans throw cold water on proposed $15 minimum wage, demand cut backs in bill."

[edwardv]

I started working in 1973. Min wage was 2.50. What's it now 7.25? That's not much higher considering inflation which may or not be under control with CPI manipulations and QE. Just get that PPP money if you own a business. That's the real gold over the rainbow.

Sent from my LGL322DL using Tapatalk

[BlindtotheWorld]

I started working in 1973. Min wage was 2.50. What's it now 7.25? That's not much higher considering inflation which may or not be under control with CPI manipulations and QE. Just get that PPP money if you own a business. That's the real gold over the rainbow.

Sent from my LGL322DL using Tapatalk

Inflation is not the only measure of the changing value of money. Certain products get much cheaper over time due to advancements. Example:

[rocknblues81]

I wish Republicans would be more directional in their thinking, because it seems like you risk something worse by not offering a reasonable alternative. If you deny climate change, you get the Paris agreement. If you don't draw a line between confederates and founding fathers, you get both canceled.

And if you don't make the case that reparations need to be paid to people who actually experienced a grievance and not their ancestors, you get slavery-based reparations. AND you get the added bonus that people say your opposition is racial.

A better proposal is reparations for anyone who is Black and was alive prior to the Civil Rights Act. You were legislated as a second-class citizen, thus your rights were violated and you get compensated for that. Sure, that isn't true of every person in every state, but you can only prove so much. But at least that is a tangible reparation, much like Reagan and those Japanese Americans who had actually been in an internment camp.

I fear by taking a hardcore, opposite stance, you end up giving more up, and yielding a worse result.

Being reasonable with unreasonable people doesn't work.

Why do people not understand this??? The progressive ideology produces zealots.. Just like religious fundamentalists.

Why is the left owed a "compromise" for every bad proposal they put forth? Why is it up to everyone else to pander to nut job radicals?

[rocknblues81]

Their messaging is terrible.

There’s a way to compromise AND get your ideas out there and present them in a way that seems like you care.

“If mandating high wages made people wealthier, we’d have solved poverty long ago. The reality is that it’s more complicated than that, and we support many reforms that will help the poorest amongst us reach their full earning potential.

Minimum wage is but one of those reforms, and we support a minimum wage that takes into account the local economies and local unemployment rates where communities can best maximize the number of people who are helped.

The reason Democrats don’t offer a $25 minimum wage or a $50 minimum wage is because there are negative trade offs when you increase the price of labor. Period.

San Francisco, CA may be able to support much higher than a $15 minimum wage with few negative effects. But Barstow, CA, with high unemployment, increasing the price of something drastically is not the way to get people to buy more of it. The negative effects outweigh the wage increase.

So we support a $10 national minimum wage, indexed to inflation. We believe most of America can at least do that for our friends and family members working so hard to make ends meet. And we call on local communities who know those friends and families best to adjust that higher if they believe that best suits their community, that the trade offs are worth it.

We hope that by meeting halfway with this sensible offer, Democrats will work with us to remove archaic, ineffective red tape that gets between you and your employer paying you more, money that is otherwise wasted in complying with rules that don’t make sense.

Together, we can make the future brighter for those of us that have difficulty seeing light at the end of the tunnel.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The left doesn't want to hear other people's ideas.

Attempting to "compromise" with authoritarianism does nothing but make you look weak to them.

[edwardv]

Inflation is not the only measure of the changing value of money. Certain products get much cheaper over time due to advancements. Example:

Tell me where I can buy 2 litre Coke for 30 cents? How about 1970s box of corn flakes for 1.50?. I could keep going. Everythings smaller packages and less material too. The older you get you realize this. Look at the undershirts Fruit of the Loom makes today. They are so thin you hold them up to a light and you can see thru them. Do that with one from 30 years ago you won't see any light.

[Dave's Dreidel]

The left doesn't want to hear other people's ideas.

Attempting to "compromise" with authoritarianism does nothing but make you look weak to them.

Because the right is so welcoming and open minded?