There is no doubt that the Democratic party has done more for the little guy than the Republicans for many decades. But for the recent decades the party has focused on winning each election by compromising the principles it used to stand for. Small increases in minimum wage look like pandering to me, not actual progress. It’s not that the Democrats are doing nothing for the lower strata, but they seem to do only enough to get their votes. People are still suffering in this country, there have always been people in that condition, but this is not one of those times where they could look ahead to a better future.
I understand the conundrum, without winning elections no party or politician can actively change the system. But is that winning just for winning’s sake, or should there be a goal to achieve? Does anyone but Bernie Sanders say that we cannot allow the country to continue consolidating the wealth and power of the nation into fewer and fewer hands? He is an old man, this election cycle will be his last hurrah. I don’t see anyone who will carry forward the tradition of fighting for the common man, to say that all of us must benefit before we lavish the spoils of success on the few and leave the rest behind.
It’s not easy to lift yourself up by your bootstraps when you can’t afford boots. Some few will always meet that challenge, persevere and succeed against the odds. Is that the only way to escape poverty in this country, to be extraordinary? What is the ordinary person to do in such circumstances?
Yes I do wonder. Grown men and women who fail at the most basic of life’s tasks? It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to spend less than you earn and plan ahead. I grew up in a single wide trailer without electricity for months at a time.
What did I do? I took school seriously. I worked. I stayed off drugs and booze. Didn’t waste money on cigarettes. Made damn sure sexual activity was safe. Went to college and picked a degree in a field that payed reasonably well and had a long term history and a good projected future, engineering. Married a woman who shared the same values as I with regards to financial behavior and long term thinking.
So yes, if I can move from the bottom 5% to the top 5% by acting reasonably and rationally others can change their circumstances as well. That said, you need to read both my posts. I am in favor of a basic income. Btw, dipping into one’s 401 is pretty stupid for most reasons. Smart people have savings that aren’t penalized for use.
For one, we need to stop waiting for a Superhero to run for president and save the little guy. Or the occasional Senator or Congressperson. Bernie, even if he was elected president, wouldn’t be able to do jack shit. Bernie in the Senate, and Warren in the Senate, aren’t able to do jack shit right now…other than inspire.
We need to elect progressive/socialist/pro-little-guy candidates to school boards, city councils, mayor seats, county commissions…hell neighborhood associations. Get appointed to city commissions. They can do some good stuff at a local level, but more importantly, they can get experience and build their resumes for running for state-level offices and eventually national offices. And I dare say, at least here in Michigan, the little guy is getting fucked more by local and state-level policies than they are by a national conspiracy against them.
Honestly, electing Bernie Sanders would have been a fucking disaster for the “little guy.” Without progressives in Congress or in state legislatures or local offices, he would’ve gotten absolutely nothing accomplished, would have been a one-term president and set back this movement 50 years.
All these fired up millenials and union members and other Bernie supporters? They need to put their money where their mouths are and run for some unglamourous local offices and start actually accomplishing the things they are dreaming Bernie would do.
I agree with every word of what Happy Lendervedder says. The sooner the left ditches its savior/big daddy issues and takes firsthand responsibility for the changes it wants, the sooner it might actually start accomplishing something.
They can go to their local library to study for something like a Cisco’s CCNA or CompTIA’s Network+. If you don’t believe me, look at the very first book shelf on the Dewey Decimal system at your local library. That is where the computer certification prep books are. Ask me how I know.
A CCNA exam costs $295. Even if you had to go to a local street corner for a year solid with a sign saying please help, you can pigeon hole $295.
At the very least a CCNA can land you a job doing something like computer support/help desk which should land you a salary in the low 30s. 12% growth outlook according to the BLS. Put in a few years doing that and apply for a job like a network technician. Now you’re up to low 40s. Put in a few more years and snag a systems/network admin and easily commanding mid 50s at the very least.
There is nothing extraordinary about obtaining a CCNA or Network+ certification or, hell, a good number of certifications that will get you a job that doesn’t pay minimum wage. It takes effort but it doesn’t take tens of thousands of dollars in courses or workshops or a degree or work experience. It doesn’t require problem solving or memorization beyond what you were taught in high school.
Likewise, there is nothing extraordinary about grabbing a manual labor job.
Nope, just takes motivation and personal responsibility.
I was talking with the young black guy who came to clean out the dryer ducts in this complex. Started his business a few years ago, does all the work himself, and has managed to get contracts with some of the apartment and condo complexes around.
Told me he made over 250K last year! With just an air compressor mounted in his van with hoses to blow the dust/debris out through the ducts!
I agree with Happy Lendervedder. While I agree with many of the principals that Bernie Sanders stands for, I have a feeling that his supporters are a fickle, fair weather crowd, for the most part. They are like a dog chasing a car. If they ever catch it, they would not know what to do with it. And there is always another, car coming.
Achieving social change like Bernie Sanders proposes is much harder than many of his supporters understand. It’s one thing to imagine it, it’s quite another to work and sacrifice to actually achieve it.
Much as it saddens me to admit it, people like Sanders and Warren are far more effective agents of change as a continuing active member of congress.
For the sake of argument, let’s suppose those in menial jobs really could improve their lot. Still, somebody will take their place. Somebody has to make the hotel beds, bag the groceries, sweep the floors, stock the shelves. Why should people doing work that needs to be done have to live in such dire straits?
The way I see it, the reason that Democrats in office haven’t done more is not because they are beholden to rich special interests, it’s because the Republicans (and the people that voted for them) won’t let them. I think if we could get a Democratic president, House, and Senate, things would get done that would substantially benefit the little guy. No, Obama’s first two years don’t count. I blame several factors in the senate for that, including Al Franken not being seated till July 2009, the death of Ted Kennedy, and Ben Nelson essentially not being a true Democrat. I think that if that Senate had been 64-36 instead of 59-40 or 59-41 for most of those two years, significant legislation to help the little guy probably would have passed.
Well, I think they might be willing to work if someone actually took the time to help them channel their passion. Local parties and labor organizations should hold candidacy workshops to both identify potential candidates and walk people through the process of running/governing. You can bet your bottom dollar that people supporting pro-corporate policies do this.
Wealth is more organized, and therefore we’re in the situation we’re in in this country. The little guys need to organize themselves now.
What’s wrong with government income assistance for those who are working to the best of their capabilities and coming up short for necessities? Specific aid for those in true need is a much better tool than the counterproductive and overly broad minimum wage brush.
Right, the middle-class kids living (essentially for free) at home with their parents, and get an entry-level job at the mall so they can get discounts on clothing probably don’t really need a raise!
It doesn’t matter who stands up for “the little guy” when “the little guy” can be see easily manipulated into voting against her/his own best interests by those with the power and will to do so. Jesus Hisself wouldn’t stand a chance in Hell if he had to run his campaign aboveboard and without his daddy’s supernatural influence.
I have no problem with that. I use minimum wage/living wage as an example, not a specific solution. I don’t see why we can’t find a way to incentivize job creation either, even if we have to pay employers to take on employees. We’re going to end up paying out one way or another when there aren’t enough jobs to go around, we may as well get the benefit of productivity instead of just doling out the money.
There should be a time limit, however. There has to be some personal accountability rather than a self-analysis of “Well I keep busting my butt at work but they aren’t raising my pay.” Where is the motivation to find a greener pasture in that scenario?
Republicans have roadblocked progress in the past 8 years, but Democrats are themselves serving the special interests also. This isn’t simply about offering some help to the little guy, it’s about doing something to give value to life of the honest person willing to work. Someone has to do the menial jobs and if they go to work and serve what actually is a vital role in our society then they deserve to have a life that becomes that greatness of this country, not to tread water until they are exhausted and sink below the surface.
Don’t pay the employers. Let the marketplace set the wage and if a particular person in a particular situation can’t afford the necessities after shedding luxuries provide aid to that person directly. A basic income can help with that. And with no wage floor MOST people could find some work of some kind.
Some people truly provide no economic value to the marketplace. Since eugenics is out of the question I don’t see what’s wrong in a society that has the potential to produce tremendous surpluses of wealth like the United States’ that some bare minimum assistance is provided. Believe me, I didn’t like living in a powerless, roach infested trailer as a child and I had the capability to benefit from a state provided education. My family also received food stamps and rent assistance. We also received food from private charities. I also worked for cash at sub minimum wage levels. So receiving some aid even for a long period of time won’t necessarily destroy all incentives to get a better standard of living.
I do believe that policy should be carefully constructed to not destroy incentives for self-improvement or other counterproductive consequences but not allowing the least capable to starve to death is a concession I’m willing to make.
I don’t have a problem with social programs when the feedback mechanisms that allow the programs to self-modify based upon true effectiveness of that program are not manipulated or removed to empower the political class.