The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

I can't say that I disagree with anything you're saying there. However, as much of a band aid on a gaping sore minimum wage might be, right now it's all we've got. Maintaining and raising it is all we can do from now until the establishment of a GMI becomes feasible, because dropping it before that time would be economic suicide and a disaster for all employees of mid-large businesses, as I'm sure you must be aware.

A guaranteed minimum income is just impossible right now. If a GMI bill were to be brought to the House tomorrow, there would be so much Cold War hyperbole you'd swear McCarthy had never left, and the sheer volume of riders and amendments would be enough to ensure a presidential veto, whatever the outcome in the House or Senate.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Patticus

[PSI Wind]

In my opinion, minimum wage needs to be based on location, type of business, and size. A place like Sly's small business wouldn't be able to afford a $15 minimum wage, but Wal-Mart can sure as hell do so. With inflation, Minimum Wage's smallest amount should now be $10.10. And even if Wal-Mart paid $15 for minimum wage, what if, say, Sly's business hired for full time while Wal-Mart was for part time? Sly would end up paying that person more in the end than Wal-Mart. And something like the job I have at my church can stay at $8.05 as it's only on one day a week for me and is meant to get a little extra money, not a full or part time job.

[Patticus]

A suitable compromise would be to more actively tip workers besides those who work in a handful of industries. If there's really as much sympathy towards low wage employees as people claim, this shouldn't be that difficult.

There is little sympathy for low wage workers, from what I can see, because Americans in general seem to have been conditioned to distrust, blame and/or outright hate the working poor. Even many poor people hate other poor people, because of the bullshit diet of propaganda the right has been feeding them.

Also, if your tips and your wage don't collectively add up to minimum wage, aren't employers obligated to make up the difference for the worker? At slower times of year, that means that employers are paying over and above what they deem "affordable" employee expenditures, just because certain people elected not to visit that establishment. In light of things like that, it seems to me that it's pretty impractical for low wage workers to have to rely on the kindness of strangers to bring their pay up to the minimum wage from a sub-minimum level.

America has a pretty strange tipping culture anyway. Isn't it something crazy like 30%? Yeah, no, sorry - if I order a couple of pizzas (once every couple months or so we'll order out) and the cost runs up to $40 (because Dominoes et al just love to price gouge), I'm not adding $12 as a tip to that bill. I can't justify that ridiculous extra expense - we can barely afford the pizzas as it is (hence the infrequent purchasing thereof). I'm putting $4, maybe $4.50 if the delivery person is extra nice. A 10%ish tip is what I'm comfortable with, what I can justify, not 30%.

Every employer should be able to make up that difference and/or sustain employees at minimum wage levels, or their business model is shitty, and they need to devise a profitable one or get out of the market.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Patticus

[Tani Coyote]

There is little sympathy for low wage workers, from what I can see, because Americans in general seem to have been conditioned to distrust, blame and/or outright hate the working poor. Even many poor people hate other poor people, because of the bullshit diet of propaganda the right has been feeding them.

Also, if your tips and your wage don't collectively add up to minimum wage, aren't employers obligated to make up the difference for the worker? At slower times of year, that means that employers are paying over and above what they deem "affordable" employee expenditures, just because certain people elected not to visit that establishment. In light of things like that, it seems to me that it's pretty impractical for low wage workers to have to rely on the kindness of strangers to bring their pay up to the minimum wage from a sub-minimum level.

America has a pretty strange tipping culture anyway. Isn't it something crazy like 30%? Yeah, no, sorry - if I order a couple of pizzas (once every couple months or so we'll order out) and the cost runs up to $40 (because Dominoes et al just love to price gouge), I'm not adding $12 as a tip to that bill. I can't justify that ridiculous extra expense - we can barely afford the pizzas as it is (hence the infrequent purchasing thereof). I'm putting $4, maybe $4.50 if the delivery person is extra nice. A 10%ish tip is what I'm comfortable with, what I can justify, not 30%.

Every employer should be able to make up that difference and/or sustain employees at minimum wage levels, or their business model is shitty, and they need to devise a profitable one or get out of the market.

If there's little sympathy for low wage workers, then this is a non-issue. Raising the minimum wage would logically be a fool's errand.

 

Employers can indeed mark tips against wages, though that just shows why a private system solution really isn't a good idea. With regards to percentages, I was always told you could cap it at a certain amount.

 

As for businesses - you're being a little too broad there. Wal-Mart gets an item for $0.50, while smaller stores get it for $1. Add this up across the board and Wal-Mart is saving billions of dollars on items, and so is in more of a position to pay minimum wages.

 

Small businesses are what this country is built on. The minimum wage is anti-small business. It has nothing to do with a "shitty" model. It has to do with the economies of scale bigger businesses can take advantage of.

 

What you're effectively saying here is that, in a desire to improve the position of the poor, ironically only the wealthy should be able to operate businesses. The minimum wage is bad news for the smaller players. Same goes for benefits - that's why all the big guys were all behind mandated health insurance on the part of employers; they can absorb that loss a lot easier than smaller employers can.

 

GMI or bust.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Sly the Tasmanian Ogilvie

[Patticus]

The whole reasoning underlying GMI is that, in the most powerful/developed nations on earth, everyone should be reaping the rewards of living there, and nobody should be suffering economic dire straits. If GMI is not possible, and right now it just isn't -- the lingering Cold War paranoia of many Americans and politicians, and the existence f citizens united, ensures failure or repeal today -- then until it is, the only other ethically responsible recourse is maintaining the minimum wage. It does place constraints on small businesses, that's true, but it is a necessity to keep workers from working for third world wages and living third world lives. And maybe before wholesale GMI comes along for us all, maybe we can have a limited GMI for only the employees of the smallest businesses, and keep the minimum wage for those working for medium to big ones who have no excuse beyond greed for paying poverty wages. Could that be done?

Also, why does the unpopularity of low wage workers' plight (an unpopularity driven by propagandizing politicians and right-wing pundits seeking to cast the wealthy as the good guys so that they can get lots of tax breaks and stuff) make paying them more a fool's errand? It's the right thing to do. It's generally good for the economy for the people to feel wealthier, with more cash to splash, and it raises the quality of life for millions of children.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Patticus

[Tani Coyote]

The whole reasoning underlying GMI is that, in the most powerful/developed nations on earth, everyone should be reaping the rewards of living there, and nobody should be suffering economic dire straits. If GMI is not possible, and right now it just isn't -- the lingering Cold War paranoia of many Americans and politicians, and the existence f citizens united, ensures failure or repeal today -- then until it is, the only other ethically responsible recourse is maintaining the minimum wage. It does place constraints on small businesses, that's true, but it is a necessity to keep workers from working for third world wages and living third world lives. And maybe before wholesale GMI comes along for us all, maybe we can have a limited GMI for only the employees of the smallest businesses, and keep the minimum wage for those working for medium to big ones who have no excuse beyond greed for paying poverty wages. Could that be done?

Also, why does the unpopularity of low wage workers' plight (an unpopularity driven by propagandizing politicians and right-wing pundits seeking to cast the wealthy as the good guys so that they can get lots of tax breaks and stuff) make paying them more a fool's errand? It's the right thing to do. It's generally good for the economy for the people to feel wealthier, with more cash to splash, and it raises the quality of life for millions of children.

I can't buy into a minimum wage because of practicality, the same way I reject ACA regardless of any benefits. In the long run, both are a loss for society because they ultimately serve to make elite interests stronger, thus creating a roadblock for further change.

 

Having a GMI that only applies to certain parts of the economy and not others sounds like a bureaucratic headache waiting to happen.

 

It's a fool's errand because in any democracy, it stands to reason that if the average joe doesn't care much about low wage workers, you're not going to have much success passing such a law. If you do manage to pass such a law... you are not really in a democracy anymore.

[Patticus]

Minimum wage is all we have right now - GMI is much better, yes, but we can't just ditch the minimum wage in the meantime. Enough people are mired in poverty as it is, and I have zero faith in corporate America not to royally fuck with poor people's already bad wages if it were to go without GMI to fall back on.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

America has a pretty strange tipping culture anyway. Isn't it something crazy like 30%?

Da duq did you hear that from?!

30% is extremely high for gratuity, and that's only if you really want to be generous to the server/delivery person. It's usually 15%, with anything less or nothing at all being due to poor service (or because you're a stiffing jerkass), and anything more for above and beyond excellent service.

Where this 30% tipping come from? Is that some different standard for pizza delivery drivers? Because if so, I find that a little jacked up.

Edited July 27, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Tani Coyote]

Minimum wage is all we have right now - GMI is much better, yes, but we can't just ditch the minimum wage in the meantime. Enough people are mired in poverty as it is, and I have zero faith in corporate America not to royally fuck with poor people's already bad wages if it were to go without GMI to fall back on.

I'm not saying it's going to be ditched, just I'm not throwing my weight behind it because all it does is make things worse in the long run.

Doubly so because I'm not a fan of a screw the middle class approach to society's problems.

[Meta77]

I will keep it short. I like trump. He is saying things "for the most" I agree with. Especially the border. As for minimal wage. Anyone that thinks all businesses that raise it will continue to keep all their staff is just silly. That money is going to come from somewhere. Either raise the prices for customers, cut some jobs or hours, or products overall will raise. People that think just cause the min wage is raised that everything else will stay the same to keep it in check is just silly to me I would think.

[PSI Wind]

So, is there a way I can vote in the primaries as an Independent or is it depending on the state? The only person I honestly respect is ol' Bernie, so I can either add my vote or pray that he makes it past Hilary. And speaking of being an Independent, that means I'm not limited to choosing who I want in the primaries if I can vote, I can work the polls for easy money as the primaries for the two parties can be done both ways, and I'm not blinded by my party affiliation and agreeing with anything they say. It's a win-win.

That, and George Washington didn't want parties, so being an Independent makes me feel like I'm keeping his dream alive.

Edited July 27, 2015 by PSI Wind

[Patticus]

I will keep it short. I like trump. He is saying things "for the most" I agree with. Especially the border. As for minimal wage. Anyone that thinks all businesses that raise it will continue to keep all their staff is just silly. That money is going to come from somewhere. Either raise the prices for customers, cut some jobs or hours, or products overall will raise. People that think just cause the min wage is raised that everything else will stay the same to keep it in check is just silly to me I would think.

The price rises that come from higher wages aren't really worth fretting over. Job cuts is a greater concern, and reduced hours is another, but if wages are higher then the impact of the cut in hours is at least a little reduced. No large company needs to make cuts or reduce hours though - certainly not the Walmarts and McDonalds' of the world - unless said company is a basket case that'll be exiting the market soon enough anyway.

As for the border issue, tell me you don't believe his "Mexico is sending its rapists and criminals across the border" buffoonery.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Patticus

[PSI Wind]

Well, all the big retailers have you work a maximum of 20 hours as a part timer nowadays, and I hear that some companies have reduced full time hours to 32 or 35 to avoid the chance of paying overtime.

[Tornado]

Also, $9 is not even close to being a living wage, unless you live in some Mad Maxian wasteland like Detroit. I earn $9.52/hr doing my job, and even if I had a solid 40 hour work week, I couldn't afford more than a two room efficiency apartment without my wife's additional income. We don't even live in a big city, we're out in the boondocks between them.

So is that not supposed to prove my point, or... 

 

 

No large company needs to make cuts or reduce hours though - certainly not the Walmarts and McDonalds' of the world - unless said company is a basket case that'll be exiting the market soon enough anyway

It's too bad that McDonald's is only a large company 15% of the time.

 

 

[Patticus]

Well, all the big retailers have you work a maximum of 20 hours as a part timer nowadays, and I hear that some companies have reduced full time hours to 32 or 35 to avoid the chance of paying overtime.

Also, to avoid the Affordable Care Act, because profits trump the well-being of the proletariat.

It's too bad that McDonald's is only a large company 15% of the time.

Which beggars belief, considering the size of the company. Does it use loopholes and tax havens to reduce its supposed size?

[PSI Wind]

It's weird too because while in the short run, you'd spend for healthcare for your employees, this means they'll be more healthy and more willing to work, which means better customer service, which means more customers, which means more profits.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-28/smoke-that-pot-now-christie-tells-users-in-states-that-allow-it

 

Ah, ye olde "it's on the books so it needs to be enforced" argument.

 

People like him do not understand that officers, executive officials, etc.'s ability to not enforce laws is actually a very powerful check and balance. Sure, a politician takes an oath to faithfully execute the law. But does he not have a higher duty to the People? The way I see it, a President can within reason not enforce the law... because if he ever did so in an abusive manner, you have Congress ready to impeach him. You have elections to curb his power or remove him outright.

 

Plus this guy is a hypocrite. "Pointing to his own administration of New Jersey’s medical marijuana program that he opposes, he said elected officials can’t unilaterally choose which statutes to enforce." Excuse me sir, you just contradicted yourself. You see, you enforced a medical marijuana law because it was the law of the state despite your personal feelings on it... but the federal government doesn't allow medical marijuana. You were breaking the law of the federal government by enforcing a state law. Please familiarized yourself with the Supremacy Clause, if you'd be so kind.

 

So which is it, Chris? Is the federal government or the state government supreme? It sounds like you believe in state supremacy when you're a Governor, but federal supremacy when you're President. I have to admire your self-serving pragmatism on the subject.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Sly the Tasmanian Ogilvie

[Patticus]

If you go and start enforcing every law that's still on the books, the women of New York City had better get their clutches out, because those of them wearing clingy or otherwise body-hugging clothing owe the city a $25 fine. Cleveland OH women can't legally wear patent leather shoes in public, and in Hartford CT it's totally illegal to train your dog.

Of course, there are good reasons to keep marijuana out of the public's hands (there are health risks), but banning it is not the answer. Scientific research is the answer - determining the most mentally dangerous and carcinogenic strains, and also determining whether weed is addictive (some users I've read of report feelings of dependency), are critically important goals. With research and study, we can find and ban the bad variants of marijuana and keep the good stuff, maybe even breed and engineer the ultimate pot strains. It'll also be necessary to determine whether or not pot is linked to cancer.

Legalization and regulation allows just such research, so we must allow and encourage the scientific community to do a lot of that, and whatever bans are necessary can come in, leaving the public safely high.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Patticus

[Tani Coyote]

I don't even think we need to regulate it that much at all.

 

Portugal's violent crime dropped like a stone when it decriminalized hard drugs and replaced sentences with mandatory stays in rehab.

 

It sounds to me like we should legalize recreational use of any substance without serious addiction or side effects on the mind, and decriminalize the rest. Bear in mind, we let alcohol flow freely and even with the threat of drunk driving, the overall damage is minimal.

 

Marijuana alone would generate an estimated gain of $60 billion for the economy due to police budget cuts and new businesses if it were fully legalized. I'm also seeing a huge drop in violent crime because those involved in the trade will have less incentive to assault and murder, never mind how much money is in the drugs trade.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Sly the Tasmanian Ogilvie

[Patticus]

You don't think research should be going into figuring out which are the most harmful strains of pot, what (if any) links there are to cancer et al, and getting rid of them? Or do you think that taxing the shit out of them like cigarettes would discourage usage better?

Edited August 1, 2015 by Patticus

[Tani Coyote]

You don't think research should be going into figuring out which are the most harmful strains of pot, what (if any) links there are to cancer et al, and getting rid of them? Or do you think that taxing the shit out of them like cigarettes would discourage usage better?

Well, I certainly don't support the government doing that (getting rid of them). Unless there's secondhand smoke, it's really not the state's business how harmful a drug is. If a person wants to destroy their body, that is their right.

 

I think the state's only obligation in the matter is making sure everyone's well-informed and knows the risks. Informed consent is the only true consent. I can support research on that basis alone.

 

Of course, exceptions might be made for things like cocaine and heroin, which can be addictive on the first try. However, some countries allow cocaine for medical usage, so perhaps the addiction isn't as severe as thought, and we can work with that.

 

Though what I overall meant is we don't need a robust effort to sort drugs into varying severity, at least at first. Simply decriminalizing across the board would work wonders. Outright legalization can come later when it's apparent something wouldn't have serious effects on wider society.

 

Right now, tons of people illegally smoke or consume pot. I think it's a safe judgment that it's not a destructive drug and law enforcement has bigger fish to fry.

[Tani Coyote]

http://news.yahoo.com/telemundo-interviews-bush-wide-range-topics-184508838--politics.html

 

Jeb Bush gave his first interview for a Spanish language channel... in Spanish.

 

He's obviously got the Cuban vote in the bag with his desire to support dissidents in Cuba. He also wants to make it easier to immigrate legally than illegally.

 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he's able to make considerable ground among Latino voters. He's got a multicultural background that will make him look a lot more sympathetic to their issues.

 

If anyone can help repair the image of the GOP among Latino voters in the wake of Trump's dumbassery, it's probably this guy.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie

[Meta77]

The price rises that come from higher wages aren't really worth fretting over. Job cuts is a greater concern, and reduced hours is another, but if wages are higher then the impact of the cut in hours is at least a little reduced. No large company needs to make cuts or reduce hours though - certainly not the Walmarts and McDonalds' of the world - unless said company is a basket case that'll be exiting the market soon enough anyway.

As for the border issue, tell me you don't believe his "Mexico is sending its rapists and criminals across the border" buffoonery.

No I do not believe Mexico is purposely sending over rapist and all that, that was just crazy talk I agree, but I do believe it needs to be secured regardless. I know Hillary talked about how there needs to be a way for people to come here legally. Well there is a way but no one wants to do that and would rather just make a fun for it rather by the border or via sea. I remember a article a few days ago where a lady who came here legally was shooting a photo and some guys hidden in a boat made a run for it. She said she felt bad for them but understood as some people just want better lives. While this may be true I would have rounded them up and sent them right back. Do it the legal way.

[Tani Coyote]

Immigration law also doesn't reflect reality. A lot of people are perfectly fine to do it legally, but 1) it's very slow and 2) not enough people are allowed in.

 

I know there's all sorts of appeals to fairness to immigrants who waited legally or that we can't take in everyone but... this is why I mentioned reality.

 

Now sure, we can quite possibly secure the border and grant amnesty to everyone already here... but the moment word drops of that? You're going to see a mad rush of people who come here to take advantage of that before the border is closed up.

 

Never mind it's also an insanely expense endeavor if chain link fences is what one's talking about, because that will require fairly large numbers of manpower to keep people from simply cutting the wire. There is the old fashioned stone wall... a Great Wall of America... but that's going to also cost a lot.

 

Really I think a better idea would be to oversee large amounts of economic development in Mexico. This is where Mexican pride will come in though: they're the impoverished person who refuses help when they desperately need it. As a result of a history of foreign occupation, they desperately want to stymie foreign acquisition of their property, and they likewise don't want armed foreign agents on their soil.

 

Not that I care that much, myself. Our interests are clearly against theirs in this regard. They can't control their crime, and from what I know it's already spilled across the border in a lot of places. They can't provide a good economic environment for their people, and that causes millions of people to already spill over our border. This is no longer a Mexican issue.

 

Cooperation is good and all, but there's a limit.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie

[Patticus]

At least American immigration law doesn't require that legal migrants (or at least, those already with citizen spouses) secure a £18,600 ($29,057) per annum job within the country before migrating.

I can attest to the American system's slow speed though - I've been here for 28.5 months and still have not been given a 10 year green card. I spent 18 months unemployed, just sitting around waiting to be given any kind of work authorization or green card, then I got both a work card and a 2 year green card, and now that's expired and I'm only here because a letter from the USCIS gives me a year's extra stay on my old card. I've done my bio-metric stuff down in Cincinnati, and I'm presently waiting on my petition to result in my 10 year green card.

Molasses moves faster.

 

If Mexico is going to develop economically, and if America is going to see a slackening of illegal migration, they are both going to need to end the war on drugs, legalize, regulate and adopt a public health stance toward them. Take away the cartels' primary reason for being, and though you'll still have people trafficking, sex trafficking etc, things will calm down a huge amount. Mexico will become an economically powerful country when it gets its act together, so I hope America is prepared for that.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Patticus