For anyone arguing that middle/upper-class black families are sufficiently rare that this is a non-issue, go look up how many black students there are at good/elite universities. The reality is that a large portion, perhaps a majority, of the black students at those universities come from middle/upper class families (mostly because even AA doesn't guarantee admission, and the scores of poor black students is rarely anywhere near what is needed for admission).
Hope is the denial of reality
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/bu...s-backing.html
I see that GGT is officially the chief Obama economic adviser. I suppose what policy would better create more poor, welfare-dependent minorities than a giant hike in the minimum wage.
Hope is the denial of reality
Too many things to quote in that article (and my computer didn't like the link to that "well-regarded study" from Berkeley for some reason).Originally Posted by Loki
Seems to me the options are keeping federal minimum wage where it is (at 1970's purchasing power), with states making their own increases, based on COL. I might be convinced to support that....IF those states using cheap labor agreed to forego federal subsidies for their dominant industries in energy, agriculture, pharmaceuticals/chemicals, or military...as well as infrastructure and disaster relief that other states help pay for.
That would pitt states against one another, instead of acting as a Union, so it's not really pragmatic. Maybe what we really need is states knowing and admitting if they're national net-contributors or net-takers.
The states are supposed to compete...and experiment...oh never mind...
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Obama calls for $9 minimum wage and gets no traction...so he calls for a $10 minimum wage?
Maybe he'll join the $15 crowd next time.
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh, never mind?
Plop a state university in the middle of corn fields, fruit orchards, or fossil fuel extraction....and the "big picture" changes quite a bit.
The $10 minimum was introduced by legislators, not the President.
A recent Gallup poll suggests that a majority of people, including those who self-identify as Republicans, support raising minimum wages. It's not clear if that means raising the federal minimum, or the state minimum. But it does suggest that people understand minimum wage jobs can't sustain individuals or families...let alone a large, national economy, based on consumerism.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165794/am...imum-wage.aspx
This is why people vote for people and not on specific issues.
And if most people in certain states don't believe blacks should be able to vote, well, the people are always right!
Hope is the denial of reality
People vote for people who share their ideas, and legislatures vote on their state's minimum wages.This is why people vote for people and not on specific issues.
Equating civil rights with minimum wage policy, WTF?
You mean people can be ignorant about one but not the other?
Hope is the denial of reality
No clue what you're on about, Loki.Some state legislatures recently voted to increase their minimum wage. Not ballot initiatives, but elected representatives....who know more about their poverty levels, and public spending on programs for the poor, than anyone else. How is that being ignorant?
Wait, is it now your position that the reason politicians vote a certain way is because they're knowledgeable about a given issue?
Hope is the denial of reality
I was hoping you'd be more clear about your own opinion, with more than words than bumper stickers.
I'm just impressed by your ability/willingness to totally change your assumptions about some pretty important things just because it happens to reinforce your problem of the day.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sounds like more baiting....but what "assumptions" do you think I've changed regarding minimum wage? Yes, this is an important issue, not 'my problem of the day'.
No, he caught you in double speak. Just because an elected official votes the way you want does NOT mean they took the time to actually learn about the issue. It can be just as partisan as the otherside.
But, I will give you points on maybe suggesting that State politicians may now more about their needs than DC.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
What doublespeak?
So you agree that States may be smarter than the Feds? (And more agile)
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Sure, sometimes, even often. But I also think some states can be slow or reluctant to change, which can be harmful to people and their best interests. I'm not going to say it's because they're stupid or ignorant, though. Especially since they have plenty of smart political tacticians, strategists, donors, lobbyists, and legislators in their pocket.
GGT where do you exactly stand on the notion of states vs. federal government. I get a real strong feeling that you don't care at all about the issue and only support one side or the other if backs your policies.
I would think that in a country as big and diverse as the USA, a state minimum makes more sense - I bet standards of living are rather different between, say, N.Y. or Hawaii. I'm not opposed to a (sensible) minimum wage, but I wouldn't support the same for, say, the Netherlands and Poland.
It depends on which issue and specific 'policies' you mean. Certain things should be federal, from currency to national defense to civil rights, since we're a union of states. Some other things should be left to states to decide, like state taxes or liquor licenses or legal driving ages. That's not just constitutional but pragmatic.
If politicians want states to decide their own min. wage, they should still meet a minimum national standard. If some states had $3/hour min. wage (or no min.) that would be moving backward -- to exploited workers, sweat shops, desperate poverty.
Low wage states use more federal assistance than they contribute in federal taxes for their safety net, anyway...so their argument about states' rights superceding federal law is hollow.
Net flow of money between federal and state isn't connected to state rights, though. One is about money, the other is about the constitution, which really aren't the same things. And if you think about it, the connection between the net money flow and low minimum wages makes sense, too.
Some politicians do try to make the connection to states' rights and the constitution, though. As in, "The feds can't tell us what to do" or "we have the right to run our state the way we want"....according to the constitution.
When it comes to money, and states being net contributors vs net users....I'm talking about federal funds for Disaster Relief, FEMA, Dept. of Education, Medicaid, etc. States that are predominantly Republican and/or southern may have lower minimum wages, but they also have higher rates of poverty, and use more federal dollars per capita than states with higher minimum wages. Especially after tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, oil spills, natural gas explosions.
McResources tried to give "financial advice" to their employees:
Eat day-old bread and bruised apples to save money.
Break food into pieces to stretch hunger pangs.
Exchange holiday gifts for cash to pay off debts.
Complain less to reduce your B/P and cortisol levels.
Apply for federal assistance to supplement your wages.
Needless to say, McDonald's caught a ton of flak for their "McResources", and removed it from the web. Wouldn't it just be easier, more pragmatic, PR savvy, and investor-friendly.....to pay ALL their employees a higher wage?
Spoken as someone who has no idea how businesses work. No, it's not better to pay more; paying more costs money. Offering advice does not.
Hope is the denial of reality
There's plenty of evidence comparing large multi-national corporatetax breakswelfare, with *prices* paid by local/state residents. Like Boeing, who "negotiated" billions of dollars of corporatetax breakswelfare in WA state.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote