If you take the difference out of foreign aid or defense spending and leave my paycheck alone consider it a done deal.
Small increases, which can do a lot to actually improve the lives of many, aren’t just pandering. Incremental change in the right direction may be the best chance we have to improve things – I think it’s far more likely than revolutionary change.
Yeah, it’s a small temporary increase for those who keep their jobs. That is pandering. And the consequences are bad.
Survivor bias is what this is.
Not necessarily. Most recent minimum wage increases were not accompanied by any significant discernible increases in unemployment. If the minimum wage is increased relatively slowly, we should be able to detect any significant effects on the number of jobs.
Hmm, the aggregate of minimum wage increases starting from 0 has had a large impact. We can’t discount the past. Would Detroit look like a poorly maintained Walking Dead set if people were paid market value?
If you want a long discussion about Detroit (which involves far, far more than the minimum wage or even wages in general), then I recommend you start a new thread.
Detroit is just an example. The point being it shouldn’t be cheaper to ship steel and tremendous amounts of manufactured goods from China to the US. The fact we pay people to stay idle while enriching a strategic competitor is lunacy (no offense meant to werekin).
I asked this question because I do not believe small increments are serving the Democratic party. Last night Bernie said this:
“I will be damned if we allow the Republican party, whose job is to represent the rich and the powerful, to win the votes of working class Americans”
I believe he is pointing out the Democratic party is failing to deliver and losing the trust of the little guy. When that trust is lost they will turn to the other party or not vote at all. They don’t need to believe the Republicans will help them out at all to vote for them, they’ll find another issue to base their decision on. Or they’ll just try out the alternative philosophy that somehow says they’ll be better off because of Conservative magic. And why shouldn’t they when the Progressive approach has failed them?
I think the issue is less about who cares about the little guy, so much as what does the little guy need? What does the little guy want? What are the actual barriers to success for the little guy? I’m not sure that trained lawyers with 20,000 square foot houses are the most qualified people to judge this, which is why even if they mean well they probably aren’t going to get far.
Sure, there are some obvious things: if people lack health care, give them health care. If people lack money, give them money. But we can’t just shower wealth on people, there’s not enough money for that. So how do we help them generate their own wealth? I can think of a few steps which not too many people talk about:
-
Rather than have special tax breaks for middle class families that also encompass some poor workers, all poor workers, whether or not they own a home, whether or not they have children, should be shielded from federal income tax. Raise taxes a little on families making $70,000 but paying no taxes and eliminate the tax liability of the 18-year old working two minimum wage jobs.
-
Restrict occupational licensing to occupations where a lack of training presents a risk to the public. Occupational licensing is a growing problem that is creating major barriers to poorer workers who could easily pick up certain skills if they could receive on the job training, but can’t afford the schooling and other fees that go with acquiring a license.
-
Don’t allow businesses to replace American workers with cheaper foreign workers. Enforce the law, in spirit as well as letter. Disney is very publicly getting away with exploiting a loophole that is allowing them to fire much of their IT staff and replace it with foreign workers. Work visas are supposed to be strictly for positions that simply cannot be filled any other way.
-
Restrict the ability of companies to deny employment based on criminal record. This also goes for occupational licensing. Prospective employees should only be excluded if they pose a clear threat to customers or fellow employees due to recent violent offenses. All offenses should be unavailable for most background checks after five years of release.
-
I know this is so Republican of me, but reduce taxes and unnecessary employment costs on employers.
Oh, and recruit actively for Congress candidates who look like America. In terms of occupation and educational attainment, not color. There are a lot of people here on SDMB who probably make like no money and have little formal education beyond high school but would make bangup Congressmen because of their deep knowledge of national issues combined with a keen intellect. By contrast, a lot of people who actually become politicians are long on formal education, but are actually kinda dimwitted and incurious.
The internet is a wonderful thing. Someone in the DNC should contact some of you folks, talk for a bit, and see if maybe you should try your hand at a state or local office. There are lots of intelligent people with blogs. Why aren’t these people helping govern the country? Simply because they aren’t wealthy and don’t have degrees? Let’s change that!
(bolding mine)
The thing that really stood out for me in your story of your wife’s bootstrapping was the way you wrote these two sentences.
In them, your wife “stayed until” the company was bought? Then she quit? Oh, no, she didn’t; in fact, she made no decision at all; she simply kept working at the place that was providing her with a paycheck. Then you imply that her boss was fired (“was not” retained) and immediately change the tone to it being a decision by her boss to move on (“she decided that she wanted a fresh start”). It seems likely to me that this is because if her boss was unlucky in being fired, by default your wife would have to be lucky to have been retained, and being lucky doesn’t fit the bootstrapping narrative at all, does it?
Pretty sure he was talking about his wife wanting a fresh start.
Correct. I should have been a bit more clear.
Since you brought up Bernie Sanders as someone who is working on behalf of the “little guy,” it’s worth pointing out that he is considerably less popular among the folks who are hurting the most than a lot of people would like to believe.
Sanders has generally done a fine job of tapping into the frustrations of relatively poor, relatively low-skill, relatively uneducated…white men.
He has, on the other hand, done very poorly with African Americans. He has done poorly with Hispanics. He has not done well with women. In many states, the upshot has been that the poorest group of voters (under $30k annually) have voted for Clinton. So have the least educated voters (high school diploma or less). In some states, such as New York, Sanders has actually done better among voters with incomes of $100k or more than he has among voters with incomes of $30k or less.
So, if we’re looking for someone who will stand up for the “little white man,” Sanders seems like a reasonable choice. If we’re looking more globally for someone is a champion of all the downtrodden–well, we need to keep looking.
“Recent violent offenses”? That’s it? You want to make it against the law for a company to refuse to hire a convicted embezzler who wants to join their finance department?
Even outside such blatant examples, why should the employer assume they are willing to obey the employer’s instructions when they have proven by their own actions that they are not willing to obey the law?
Everyone should contribute taxes or labor to the nation if the nation is expected to provide for them. What is freely given is treated with contempt.
Do you plan on sinking container ships and barring international communications? If not, the genie is out of the bottle with regards to global trade.
It’s hard for me to take a proposal seriously when it starts off with something like this. According to the US reserve bank the median family income was just over $53k in 2014. That’s not rich, of course, but it’s nowhere near “desperate”. This matters because the solutions necessary to help those that need it will be out of proportion to the problem.
Foreign aid I can agree with. Defense spending? Not so much. You just end up borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Bases get closed, and jobs and commerce get lost within the country, forcing others downward.
I’m talking about the people who fall below that line. The quality of their lives hang by a thread. You haven’t looked at all the data if you don’t realize the lower 40% of the income range has been consistently falling further behind the 60% above them.
Some interesting stuff there.
-
Wholeheartedly in favor of that.
-
Another reason for licensing (aside from the exception you make, which is clearly necessary) is to ensure the accountability of the employee and limit liability for the business. Cf. stockbroker, mortgage broker, real estate agent, etc. Those will still be necessary; however, in general the cost of getting licensed is fairly low and is often absorbed by the business itself. What examples of licenses can you think of that aren’t necessary?
-
Disney is one of the worst offenders. As someone who’s worked for them, I can tell you (at least at the time, which was some years ago) that 80% of their work force were independent contractors, eliminating any need for them to pay the associated federally- and state-mandated labor costs (disability, FICA, etc.). Also the carrot of becoming a permanent employee created a culture where there was high competition (thus allowing for lower salaries for those who actually did get hired on permanently) and much backstabbing. We used to call the place ‘Junior Corporate.’ Contrary to the ‘family’ image they want to project, it’s all business.
As far as enforcement, there are a number of issues, including the costs of policing and punishment, how to enforce the law, prevention of corruption, etc. -
I’m not sanguine about that, especially the 5-year limit. Granted, it would improve the lives of many convicted felons, but it’s unwanted risk for business. It’s also really difficult to police this type of thing. All the business has to do is say, “We found a more qualified candidate.”
-
You’re right.
It’s not a bad idea, but it runs into the dichotomy between needing to spend more and losing revenues.