U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[El Dildo]

Sanders has some very questionable views on on free trade, opposing NAFTA and the TPP

you need to look into the things you're saying.

 

he doesn't oppose NAFTA or the TPP on principle.

he's opposed to the language within the bills that allows Senators to insert their own local pet-projects for funding or favored trade status within the overall scope of the deal. he's opposed to those aspects of the bill which are completely unnecessary except for the back-scratching and unfair advantages it achieves for the power-players.

 

He also wants to raise the minimum wage to a ridiculous level

you are dead wrong.

allow me to explain.

 

Sanders wants a $15/hour minimum wage.

not only is that not ridiculous at all, it's actually still not enough. if you look at the average inflation rates for the consumer price index, housing, and basic living expenses over the past 50 years you'll find that everything has gone up along the same curve except for wages. CEO pay is up, cost of living is up, cost of goods/services are up, cost of higher education is up; everything is up except for middle- and low-level employee hourly pay.

 

any economist worth his weight can tell you that the minimum wage would have to be something around $20/hour to even begin to catch up with the pace of inflation over the same period of time. Bernie asking for 15 is very generous and extremely reasonable. he's actually shooting for a lower goal than he probably could/should be. the hourly-waged-worker in this country has been SHAFTED over the last several decades while Wall Street makes out like f/cking bandits knocking over a train car full of old ladies and their purses.

 

it's completely out of whack.

Bernie is completely correct to advocate for a higher minimum wage. there's nothing the least bit ridiculous about it... save for the fact that it hasn't been raised more sooner.

[Spaghetti Cat]

One of the things that I like about Dr. Carson, besides his wisdom and character, is that he's actually providing solutions. Which is a good thing. I think one of the things that turns people off is all the bitching and complaining. It has it's place for sure, but I'd like to move beyond that. Start with actual solutions to problems that we we're told can never be solved. Or if we were to solve it, only involves more and more government.

 

For example:

 

 

My views on race in this country start from that perspective. While I advocate for a colorblind society, I am by no means blind to the reality of racism. But again it comes down to a matter of focus. I believe that if we focus on what divides us rather than what unites us, we impede our ability to transcend differences and work together constructively toward a better future for all Americans.

I realize that the government can play a role in providing a social safety net, and it is one of the things that I really love about our country. But I am much more focused on how high we can rise than how far we can fall. The government has spent more than $19 trillion by some estimates on the “war on poverty” since 1965. And yet the social pathologies plaguing our society are far worse today than they were when I was a child growing up in Detroit. This points to the fact that the progressive model has largely failed — and it is past time that we try something new.

My view is that, rather than attempting to fight against poverty, we should be encouraging growth. The mental shift may be subtle, but it has profound implications for how we approach public policy. The assumption that people are “poor” grounds them in a mentality that reduces agency and creates more dependency. And more tragically, it obscures the reality that there is an abundance of opportunity that is ready for people who want to avail themselves of it.

And so my focus of my efforts — through the Carson Scholars foundation and in countless speeches before young inner-city audiences over the years — is to open the doors to possibility. The desire to do something provides the seed for its ultimate fruition. As a society we should, by nurturing that desire through programs and policies that invest in people, encourage them to achieve their God-given potential.

This calls for a new model in public policy that departs from the traditional progressive model. What I am advocating is that civil society — including the corporate sector, education community, the religious establishment and philanthropic institutions —invest in people, to empower them with tools in the form of education and character development, role models, and concrete pathways into productive and rewarding work.

The dilemmas of race and entrenched, intergenerational poverty have proven intractable despite the mountains of money that have been poured into solving them over the past 50 years. Moving beyond them will require a paradigm shift from focusing on attacking the problems to creating conditions that foster opportunity and growth.

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/opinion/251101-ben-carson-how-to-resolve-americas-social-ills-exercise-the-minds-power-to

 

 

Could have quoted the whole thing, it's a good read. I'd encourage you all to check it out for yourself, he's a good writer.

 

[El Dildo]

wisdom? character?

you're utterly brainwashed.

 

Carson will never be president in this country.

 

you think he's a good writer?

here's a short list of some of the more colorful things he's said or written...

 

• “You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery."
  2013 Values Voter Summit - comparing the attempt at universal health care to slavery.
• “Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality."
  2013 appearance on Hannity - comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and animal f/ckers.
• "Think about Nazi Germany. Most of those people did not believe in what Hitler was doing. But did they speak up? Did they stand up for what they believe in? They did not, and you saw what happened."
  2014 Washington Post - comparing Democrat votes for Obama to German holocaust deniers.
• “A lot of people who go into prison straight, and when they come out they’re gay.”
  CNN 2015 - pretty straightforward, insane statement to make.
• "I mean, our society is very much like Nazi Germany. And I know you're not supposed to say 'Nazi Germany,' but I don't care about political correctness. You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don't realize it."
  press conference answering questions about the IRS.

I could continue but that's a good handful for starters.

[jatiger13]

Carson is what I like to call "a functioning idiot".

That could apply to most republican candidates.

[Dingdongs]

Carson is what I like to call "a functioning idiot".

That could apply to most republican candidates.

It's surprising what he says given he is literally, without question, one of the the best neurosurgeons in the world...

[El Dildo]

that's just school.

being good at school is a kind of talent but it's a not an indication of intellect. intellect and test-taking are two different things. anyone can study hard and memorize a lot of information and learn to become great at medical surgery with enough time and practice (and patience and money).

 

that doesn't actually you make you intelligent.

it's remarkable how the human mind can compartmentalize itself. on the one side he's 'smart' enough to be a great neurosurgeon. on the other hand he makes public statements which are completely out of touch with reality.

[Svip]

 

Carson is what I like to call "a functioning idiot".

That could apply to most republican candidates.

It's surprising what he says given he is literally, without question, one of the the best neurosurgeons in the world...

 

 

Not really. In fact, it's very unsurprising. Research has shown that educated people are far more likely to stick to 'wrong views' (e.g. unfamiliar with history), because they 'have an education' when presented with 'opposing views' (usually what actually happened).

 

Part of being educated is also to be open to admitting you were wrong, most people in that area tends to forget that.

 

And they usually also believe they are right on areas of expertise they have no expertise in. Such as a neurosurgeon talking about history. But hey, he's an academic, so surely he most know everything.

[X S]

Did Donald Trump secretly make an account here? Why not just call Ben Carson 'stupid'? That would've been much easier.

[Svip]

Did Donald Trump secretly make an account here? Why not just call Ben Carson 'stupid'? That would've been much easier.

 

We could, but that wouldn't be very interesting. And wouldn't learn anything.

[Zook]

he doesn't oppose NAFTA or the TPP on principle

 

He does though. When originally opposing NAFTA he was afraid of American workers competing with Mexican workers. He is against trade barriers being removed. Even now he still claims it had a negative impact, despite economic evidence showing a positive impact.

 

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/02/bernie-sanders-on-the-tpp-not-another-nafta/

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-why-i-oppose-nafta/Content?oid=2435080

 

Sanders wants a $15/hour minimum wage.

 

Which might be fine in richer parts of the country, but could potentially cause unemployment in poorer parts. I probably shouldn't have used the word ridiculous because you don't know what would happen if it was raised to that level. The CBO has found that around the ten dollar mark would reduce unemployment and give workers a pay rise. Maybe raising it to such a level so quickly could have a detrimental effect on the level of employment.

 

 

 

 

[El Dildo]

He does though. When originally opposing NAFTA he was afraid of American workers competing with Mexican workers.

that's really not the full story but it's not a huge issue either.

it's not exactly the cornerstone of his candidacy...

 

 

Which might be fine in richer parts of the country, but could potentially cause unemployment in poorer parts....

Maybe raising it to such a level so quickly could have a detrimental effect on the level of employment.

 

you're wrong.

this is just baseless conjecture not to mention completely illogical. if people were paid more money for entry-level positions, this would not lead to greater unemployment. that's a retarded statement to make.

 

raising the national minimum wage is LONG overdue.

and 15 dollars isn't even enough.

Edited August 16, 2015 by El Diablo

[Zook]

 

He does though. When originally opposing NAFTA he was afraid of American workers competing with Mexican workers.

that's really not the full story but it's not a huge issue either.

it's not exactly the cornerstone of his candidacy...

 

 

Which might be fine in richer parts of the country, but could potentially cause unemployment in poorer parts....

Maybe raising it to such a level so quickly could have a detrimental effect on the level of employment.

 

you're wrong.

this is just baseless conjecture not to mention completely illogical. if people were paid more money for entry-level positions, this would not lead to greater unemployment. that's a retarded statement to make.

 

raising the national minimum wage is LONG overdue.

and 15 dollars isn't even enough.

 

 

The economic literature is quite divided on the effects of the minimum wage it's not as certain as you make it out to be, I don't know if we are misunderstanding each other. There is a level in which a minimum wage would have a negative impact upon jobs, do you accept this? All I'm saying is maybe start at 10 dollars and move it up incrementally, and maybe make it vary to be in line with the costs of living of the different states and cities.

[El Dildo]

the time for 'starting at 10' was like 25 years ago.

 

it's pretty simple.

and I don't feel like repeating myself so I won't.

 

 

if you look at the average inflation rates for the consumer price index, housing, and basic living expenses over the past 50 years you'll find that everything has gone up along the same curve except for wages. CEO pay is up, cost of living is up, cost of goods/services are up, cost of higher education is up; everything is up except for middle- and low-level employee hourly pay.

 

the minimum wage would have to be something around $20/hour to even begin to catch up with the pace of inflation over the same period of time. Bernie asking for 15 is very generous and extremely reasonable. he's actually shooting for a lower goal than he probably could/should be. the hourly-waged-worker in this country has been SHAFTED over the last several decades while Wall Street makes out like f/cking bandits with historic, all-time highs, and profits unlike anything it has ever known. there was no recession on Wall Street.

 

it's completely out of whack.

Bernie is completely correct to advocate for a higher minimum wage. there's nothing the least bit ridiculous about it... save for the fact that it hasn't been raised more sooner.

[Eutyphro]

Bernie is starting to beat Hillary in the polls by now. It's pretty cool. Even if Bernie loses to Hillary, he still has succeeded in pulling Hillary to the left, and that's great too. For entertainment sake I hope to see a Bernie vs Trump presidency battle. The debates would be magnificent.

 

It's great that the influence of money on politics is a big issue this time around. These are positive developments. It is also interesting and positive how deeply unpopular the GOP candidates are, and how bad their poll results are.

 

Common sense predicts non standard candidates like Trump (or Bernie for that matter) have no chance, but considering the unique impopularity of the 'super PAC candidates' I'm not completely sure they have no chance.

[Zook]

 

the time for 'starting at 10' was like 25 years ago.

 

it's pretty simple.

and I don't feel like repeating myself so I won't.

 

 

if you look at the average inflation rates for the consumer price index, housing, and basic living expenses over the past 50 years you'll find that everything has gone up along the same curve except for wages. CEO pay is up, cost of living is up, cost of goods/services are up, cost of higher education is up; everything is up except for middle- and low-level employee hourly pay.

 

the minimum wage would have to be something around $20/hour to even begin to catch up with the pace of inflation over the same period of time. Bernie asking for 15 is very generous and extremely reasonable. he's actually shooting for a lower goal than he probably could/should be. the hourly-waged-worker in this country has been SHAFTED over the last several decades while Wall Street makes out like f/cking bandits with historic, all-time highs, and profits unlike anything it has ever known. there was no recession on Wall Street.

 

it's completely out of whack.

Bernie is completely correct to advocate for a higher minimum wage. there's nothing the least bit ridiculous about it... save for the fact that it hasn't been raised more sooner.

 

There is no consensus on the impact of a minimum wage among economists you cannot be so certain. You honestly believe a nationwide minimum wage of $20/hour won't have any negative effects on employment? America is large and living costs vary. Tying it to the median wage for the area is something I've seen proposed by Arindrajit Dube, even he, a big supporter of an increase only says it should be increased to $12/hour.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Zook

[El Dildo]

I would argue that the consensus is in, especially in the academic/research realm.

the only 'serious' opinions in opposition to this movement are coming from Conservative-agenda think-tanks and those with an obvious bias to maintain.

 

it's exceedingly more simple than you're making it.

 

 

and where are the great concentrations of poverty?

where are the lowest rates of social mobility?

where are the highest rates of unemployment?

where are the lowest rates of graduation?

where are the highest rates of the uninsured?

 

virtually every single one of those states who have refused to update their minimum wage laws.

you know, that area we call "the South." where most of our problems come from.

 

it's not a coincidence...

[X S]

you're wrong.

this is just baseless conjecture not to mention completely illogical. if people were paid more money for entry-level positions, this would not lead to greater unemployment. that's a retarded statement to make.

 

raising the national minimum wage is LONG overdue.

and 15 dollars isn't even enough.

 

Are you not considering the flip-side of the coin? Big business and the "fat cats" may be able to afford higher salaries, but many small businesses (under 500 employees) cannot, which make up about 90% of the U.S. workforce.

 

I'll use my family's small business as an example from personal experience - under 20 employees which represents 18% of the workforce. We compete with two national supply chains. In order to retain skilled workers, we pay very competitively above minimum wage. If a national supply chain was to begin paying $15 an hour, it would jeopardize our ability to retain skilled workers. So not only would we have to raise wages in relation to the increases, but we'd also have to reduce our numbers; that means firing people. Is it a long-term solution? Certainly not, there are many other ways of managing costs in a supply chain such as developing EOQ models, analyzing demand levels, modeling flow options, etc., but it will always be an immediate and effective means of managing costs for any business. Is this an isolated incident? Sure, but it's certainly a proven example of what a business might consider.

 

And aside from the slow economic recovery, tell that to Joe Blow, the theoretical owner of a local hardware store on Main Street. He isn't going to be able to digest an entire lecture on economic theory and supply chain optimization. He just wants to know what you're going to do for him, his family and country. Because, let's be honest here, most of us vote with our wallets.

[Zook]

I would argue that the consensus is in, especially in the academic/research realm.

the only 'serious' opinions in opposition to this movement are coming from Conservative-agenda think-tanks and those with an obvious bias to maintain.

 

it's exceedingly more simple than you're making it.

 

 

and where are the great concentrations of poverty?

where are the lowest rates of social mobility?

where are the highest rates of unemployment?

where are the lowest rates of graduation?

where are the highest rates of the uninsured?

 

virtually every single one of those states who have refused to update their minimum wage laws.

you know, that area we call "the South." where most of our problems come from.

 

it's not a coincidence...

Yeah I agree that they should update them. I just take issue with the assertion it should be a $20/hour. I mean it could also be explained due to the fact that they are likely to be republican controlled states and thus badly run with a sh*t conservative agenda. But yeah a raise is probably needed in those states, I don't disagree.

[El Dildo]

Are you not considering the flip-side of the coin? Big business and the "fat cats" may be able to afford higher salaries, but many small businesses (under 500 employees) cannot

I'm sorry but this is a false cop-out.

it doesn't really hold water.

 

the economy is not a zero-sum game and a rising tide lifts all boats.

part of the reason that recovery doesn't seem to happen any faster is because only Wall Street and CEO's have experienced any kind of recovering. Big Banks and Wall Street got bailed out, Main Street got stuck with the bill. it's very simple in this regard. our government prioritizes corporate welfare over social welfare and spends money we don't have on things we don't need (like massive wars, that last for years, that we lose). if these priorities were shifted back into domestic channels of resources and small business loans and affordable interest rates, there's absolutely no reason why any small business couldn't afford to pay their employees more.

 

people earning more = people spending more.

those businesses would easily make up the returns.

[X S]

I'm sorry but this is a false cop-out.

 

it doesn't really hold water.

 

the economy is not a zero-sum game and a rising tide lifts all boats.

part of the reason that recovery doesn't seem to happen any faster is because only Wall Street and CEO's have experienced any kind of recovering. Big Banks and Wall Street got bailed out, Main Street got stuck with the bill. it's very simple in this regard. our government prioritizes corporate welfare over social welfare and spends money we don't have on things we don't need (like massive wars, that last for years, that we lose). if these priorities were shifted back into domestic channels of resources and small business loans and affordable interest rates, there's absolutely no reason why any small business couldn't afford to pay their employees more.

 

I said it was an isolated scenario, so it really isn't a cop-out. We can afford to pay higher salaries. But because small businesses usually don't benefit from economies of scale or see the immediate trickle down effects, it is an immediate cost that must be weathered. What I want to know how you're going to explain that to Joe Blow. How is a guy like Bernie Sanders going to illustrate that an increase in salaries will be affordable because "hopefully he'll see the benefits in the long-term". He's either going to lay off workers or go out of business. Explaining a cop-out about Wall Street bankers will fall on deaf ears for business owners.

[sivispacem]

It's simple utilitarianism, though. The benefit to the overwhelming majority of a $15 plus minimum wage is infinitesimally higher than the negative consequences for a small number of employees who will have to downscale or will be forced to close because of it. The US is already laughably far behind the rest of the developed world in worker rights and living wage provision, it takes a seriously backwards individual to attempt to argue this is beneficial. European states survive perfectly happily paying their workers living wages.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Should Western Civilization be saved?

 

 

The late, great, Andrew Breitbart once said "Culture is upstream of politics". What he meant was that societal changes happen at the cultural level first then find their way down to politics. For example, gay marriage was accepted in the culture before it was in the political world. I bring this up because our culture has an influence on the political realm, and we are seeing this in the campaigns.

 

But are we a cultured society? Yes we have entertainment, in movies, TV, books, music, etc. But is that culture, and what does it say about us as a society? It's been something I've been struggling with, and have been trying to come up with a way to express it.

 

For example, the other day I was reading a piece on the Looney Tunes cartoons. You know, bugs bunny, daffy duck, elmer fudd, and all the rest. I love cartoons, grew up on them as a kid, and the Looney Tunes stuff holds up even to this day. One of the great things about the Looney Tunes cartoons is how many levels they had. There was obviously the slap-stick stuff, anvil landing on Wiley E's head, but it was grounded in the western culture. Episodes like "Rabbit of Seville" or "What's Opera, Doc?" had as it's core a love of opera, dance, and art. The audience too, had a shared culture to rely on and appreciate, which stretched back hundreds of years of western civilization. The audience understood and appreciated these tropes, even while watching something as simple as a kids cartoon.

 

There was another piece I was reading, talking about Pat Sajak and the comments he made several weeks ago. Basically he was observing that the producers of Wheel of Fortune were having a harder and harder time coming up with puzzles for the contestants. The goal of Wheel of Fortune is to guess words, phrases, or titles from incomplete spellings. Sajak was observing that 10-20 years ago it was easier because we all had a shared culture to draw from. With more and more people coming from around the world, and the general lack of our own culture, the ability to get a common theme from three different contestants was getting harder and harder. And for this he was raked over the coals.

 

The takeaway from those two examples is the decline of western culture in favor of multiculturalism. The old model of the classic 'melting pot' where different peoples come to America to make a new home, while being integrated into society. Has been replaced with the multicultural "everyone is equal" model. While benign on the surface, this has the effect of balkanizing the population rather than incorporating them. So culture A is separated from culture B, and so on. Far from making everyone equal, it separates, because that cultural glue doesn't hold people of different prospectives together.

 

I would argue that multiculturalism is no culture. In-fact I would go a step further and say that multiculturalism is deconstructing culture. I'll leave aside for the moment why that is happening and for what ends, but I think we can all agree about the decline in culture. Take a look around, what do you see? We've traded in the classics for the Kardashians, who I'm sure are nice folks, but celebrity in the past meant more than having a fat ass and a sex tape.

 

Noting the Breitbart quote, the decline in culture has a direct relation on politics. Liberals, classical liberals, had as the backbone a respect for natural law, self-evident truths, and equality. The new Left turns this objective reality in to virtual reality, Utopia if you will. No longer are self-evident truths promoted, the fantasy of a perfect world is paramount. And anyone who gets in the way is vilified, tared-and-feathered, and thrown to the wolves.

 

Our rejection of classical culture has also led our society deeper and deeper into crassness. We see this on the Left as dismissal out of hand anything not pre-conditioned to the Utopian model. Same on the Right, Trump calling others 'stupid' for not agreeing with him. Our politicians are more concerned with looks and slogans rather than ideas and principals. Ask any Sanders supporter, they may not like his views, but respect his convictions and principals. Ditto for a few of the Republican candidates.

 

We've fallen into the abyss of the spectacle and moral relativism. We see that in our TV, movies, music, art, and any other place you turn. Entertainment for entertainment sake, without any knowledge or morals being passed along. For many millennia our species has thrived on passing down these two pillars from one generation to the next. We have at our disposal today the greatest communications tool ever know to man. This post is being seen in many countries and locals around the world. But yet we are possibly worse off than ever.

 

Look around the world, at the enemies of Western Civilization, and what do you see. The rejection of these age-old beliefs. It's why China censors the internet, ISIS bans music and dancing (among others), even our good friends the Russians are wary of our culture (look at the blue jeans, metalica albums and McDonalds before the fall of the USSR). However we cannot defeat an enemy like ISIS with out defeating their culture first. We are the better culture, but we can't show it, moral relativism and all. They are afraid of it, but it is we who should embrace our culture, it's the best tool we have. Liberty, justice, and free thinking are a threat to dictators and tyrants around the world.

 

So, is Western Civilization worth saving?

 

 

Which brings me back to the post I made the other day. I saw Diablo's comment and was thinking about the culture problem and how to address him directly. You'll note that in his post, and several others that followed, had nothing to do with the issues Dr. Carson was bringing up. Namely issues with race, poverty, and the federal response to them both. Instead Diablo's response had to do with comments about gay marriage. Living in virtual reality

 

These are classic diversion techniques and have nothing to do with the issue I was talking about. See, he has no response, he's living in the spectacle and world of virtual reality. And, par for the corse, anyone intruding on those notions is tarred-and-feathered. It's the Jerry Springer response to a political and social problem. Gin up the audience and on que 'boo'.

 

And I guess the proper Leftist response, seeing how he's disparaged a black man, is to accuse him of racism. The back-and-forth yelling would commence, but the problem would still be there. For the record I don't think Diablo is a racist, it's unproductive anyway. But I did want to share as an example of how the name calling back-and-forth stifles proper thought and reasoning. Again, you'll see this in our culture and our politics.

 

Which is why I have a tough time on occasions. I'm not in here for the likes. I'm not here to call names or call anyone out. I truly want to see the best for my country. I believe others do to, we may just disagree from time to time. Obviously I'm a free-market liberty kinda guy, and make no bones about it. At the same time I realize that there are others that don't share my beliefs. However, from a culture prospective, we're all united behind the same thing. I just think our media, politicians, and their hangers-on do a terrible job of leading. Which doesn't excuse us and any apathy; culture, politics, decency, it's hard work. I understand that others want the easy way, but I'm going to work hard and do my part to make sure that myself and future generations have it as good and peaceful as I did. That's not too much of an ask I hope.

 

Thanks for reading, but just incase:

 

TL;DR: The decline in our culture is leading to harsher politics and a lack of civility amongst us generally. We should all do our part to be better people and have higher cultural standards.

 

(and now I gotta get dinner!)

[X S]

The benefit to the overwhelming majority of a $15 plus minimum wage is infinitesimally higher than the negative consequences for a small number of employees who will have to downscale or will be forced to close because of it.

 

So I think it's safe to say that Joe Blow won't be voting for Bernie Sanders any time soon.

 

The US is already laughably far behind the rest of the developed world in worker rights and living wage provision, it takes a seriously backwards individual to attempt to argue this is beneficial. European states survive perfectly happily paying their workers living wages.

 

It's too easy to blame American exceptionalism. The problem is bit more complex. Even the economists sympathetic to wage increases are unsure of the overall effects on small businesses because the cost-of-living is so disproportionately incomparable in many parts of the country. Antwerp, NY is not New York , NY, and this certainly says nothing of the less populous states, where each has there own set of minimum wage standards. El Diablo calls these low-wage areas "The South", but that is a bit of a misnomer. It's nothing more than the rural areas of America, where urban lifestyles and the cost-of-living may be significantly lower. This is why you'll see poll after poll of small business owners with a mixed bag of results on the favorability of increased wages. Data is being polled from various demos., and it's almost a 50-50 split.

 

One of the problems in America is that the term "socialism" is a loaded word, and it's usually met with contempt outside of the coastal hegemons of progressivism, such as the Northeast and Southwest. It's much more difficult to shape the discourse of political thought amongst a population of 320 million living over a square mileage of about 4 million as opposed to the population of a country like Sweden with 5 million citizens and a square mileage of 173,000.

[El Dildo]

you keep saying Joe Blow and Joe Sixpack as if every single small-business owner in the country is incapable of understanding their own economic interests. like they're all a bunch of high school drop outs or something. it's not a very strong argument...

 

and it's not just 'rural' areas.

there are massive rural areas and wilderness/plains states in the North.

 

it is The South.

it is the religious conservative agenda run amok; convincing poor/ignorant white folks to vote against their own wallet with constant fear-mongering about immigrants, national security, and national pride.

[Clem Fandango]

tell that to Joe Blow, the theoretical owner of a local hardware store on Main Street.

The average man doesn't own a hardware store, they work in one. I like how in Conservative parlance, 'Joe Blow' refers to the top 20% of earners in the country.

[X S]

you keep saying Joe Blow and Joe Sixpack as if every single small-business owner in the country is incapable of understanding their own economic interests. like they're all a bunch of high school drop outs or something. it's not a very strong argument...

 

I'm simply drawing from personal experience having taken part in the City of Paterson New Jersey's Chamber of Commerce. It's akin to a fantasy football club of about 500 business owners, but for the most part, they are of this demographic unfortunately.

 

it is The South.

it is the religious conservative agenda run amok; convincing poor/ignorant white folks to vote against their own wallet with constant fear-mongering about immigrants, national security, and national pride.

 

It's clearly visible in the map you provided above. All of those states in white or above are largely agrarian economies. I understand you want to pin this on jingoism, xenophobia and religious zealots, but c'mon, dude, correlation is not exactly causation in this case.

[Clem Fandango]

El Diablo calls these low-wage areas "The South", but that is a bit of a misnomer. It's nothing more than the rural areas of America, where urban lifestyles and the cost-of-living may be significantly lower.

 

Yes, you can live like a king in a sh*tty part of Atlanta making f*ck all money. The issue is that people aren't getting a living wage, they can't all move to the South.

 

If you think the minimum wage should differ based on location (wages often don't but whatever) that's fine, but it's not a reason to oppose a federal, standardised minimum wage. You don't oppose good ideas on the grounds that you have better ones. Raising the minimum wage would be a huge help to a lot of people, it doesn't matter if someone in Alabama has more disposable income than someone in LA, and it's not a consideration for either party as far as I'm aware.

 

 

 

This is why you'll see poll after poll of small business owners with a mixed bag of results on the favorability of increased wages.

Where did you get the idea that anyone cares? Why should I be interested in taking care of 'small business' at the expense of workers?

[Dingdongs]

Minimum wage should differ based on area and there should be a federal standard wage. 10-12 dollars for a federal standard wage then increased in other areas sounds about right. Even the most progressive economists still recommend such a policy prescription... in NY they are raising the wage in the city but keeping it the same outside due to simple cost of living reasons. 15 an hour for everybody is a bit too high right now. If you raised the minimum wage that recklessly (it's 7.25 nationwide right now) prices would shoot up just as quickly as peoples' wages.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Irviding

[Eutyphro]

I found this very interesting discussion on the subject: http://www.epi.org/press/media-advisory-joseph-stiglitz-lawrence/
The consensus seems to be that at least 10,10 dollars will have negligible to no negative side effects (and very significant positive effects).

What should be considered is that Bernie is not a scientist but a politician, and that him campaigning on 15 dollars an hours is somewhat populist (and he is aware of that). He wants to put the issue on the agenda and provoke mainstream politicians to publicly claim that they think workers don't deserve such a wage. He wants to disengage lower class from the corporate puppets constituting the political mainstream as much as possible, and he is doing that pretty well right now. What should be noted is that keeping the minimum wage at the current level like most US politicians would do is detrimental as well.

These are major economic issues, and it is up to specialists (economists) to decide what the most beneficial way of redistributing wealth will be. Off course drastic measures need to be taken to cut back on inequality, but the main instrument should be a progressive tax system and corresponding wealth redistribution (which Bernie also wants). But here the populism comes into play again... You can't campaign on taxes in the US. You will be butchered by the corporate media if you do. So in stead you campaign on higher wages.

It is a sad truth that increasing minimum wages to a decent level can have negative effects on jobs in a globalized capitalist economy. It's sad that you need exploitation in your economic system to compete globally. If you'd have a democratic economy then you wouldn't even need minimum wages or progressive taxes.. These are measures to correct the exploitative hierarchical nature of capitalism.

[jatiger13]

Meanwhile, there are plenty of Republicans who wants to completely remove minimum wage.

 

Can't say if democrats have said the same. At least, I haven't heard it being said publicly by them.