Support NeoGAF

[neurosisxeno]

Sanders has voted to reduce nasa funding and has opposed liberal immigration reform.

He voted against bills that raised funding for NASA for reasons completely devoid of the NASA budget. He's voted to raise their funding several times, and thinks space exploration is important. The problem is bills always get riders attached to them, and often politicians are stuck voting against something they really want, because there's some stupid provision attached to repeal ObamaCare or Outlaw Abortion. It's nonsense but it happens.

What liberal immigration reform did he vote against?

 

[teruterubozu]

Sanders has voted to reduce nasa funding and has opposed liberal immigration reform.

And Hillary voted for a senseless war. Apples and oranges.

 

[woen]

This is not a way to silence discussion, its a way to question- Is "income inequality" really a top priority issue? Is it better to take that wealth and give it to the government to use? What would be the effect of doing that? Would it be used effectively? Would the average person be better off?

Also the trope of the public being pacified by consumer products is tired. Just don't.

The free flow of information and ideas the world has today does much more to expose and stop corruption and everything else you mentioned.


People are so eager to trust the government that couldn't manage to not accidentally sell thousands of firearms to drug cartels to manage the wealth of the richest corporations and individuals.

https://news.vice.com/article/the-u...lly-helped-arm-el-chapo?utm_source=vicenewsfb

I'd rather they not get more involved.

Libertarians are often good at slalom. Your ideological agenda does not work anymore, even if you desperately try to reactivate it, sorry for your loss.

 

[Mecha]

It's actually quite the opposite, I think things are generally pretty good for most americans in the context of the world. No wars, little disease, cheap food and clothing, cheap gas, decent internet availability, decent education options, and work and opportunities are out there if you work for them.

I always try to look at things in a historical context and the "oppressive" mega corporations like Walmart, amazon, Google, apple, and wall street seem like a benign tumor compared to the full blown cancer of communism, fascism, Nazism, genocide, corruption, drug cartels, and disease in other parts of the world and other parts of history.

Bernie getting people upset about the rich and corporations is no different to me than trump getting people upset about Muslims and refugees. They are both really just emotional plays that don't mean much to me. Talk about how you're going to fix global warming, or how you're going to get young people to care about stem carreers more than youtube videos.

Sounds like you are comfortable with how things are while there are millions of Americans barely making a living. It's fine to have citizens living on a minimum wage or no wage at all as long as we don't anger our saviors, the billionaires. I mean things are pretty good for "most Americans" so lets not try to help the other ones! This attitude that things shouldn't be better because we have a better life than countries historically in the past had is backwards thinking. We aren't all living in caves and dying off before we hit 40 like we used to, so clearly we shouldn't help those who need it now, right? Also, Bernie isn't talking about banning all rich people or not allowing rich people to enter the country. Don't compare disadvantaged refugees to billionaires, refugees have have had more struggle in a month than billionaires have had in their entire life. It's quite insulting that you would even relate the two.

I always try to look at things in a historical context and the "oppressive" mega corporations like Walmart, amazon, Google, apple, and wall street seem like a benign tumor compared to the full blown cancer of communism, fascism, Nazism, genocide, corruption, drug cartels, and disease in other parts of the world and other parts of history.

Funny, because mega corporations often take advantage of developing countries for more profit. Suffering in developing countries caused by the pursuit of profit is fine as long as we don't have it! Also, we haven't had one communist country, only socialist ones with the end goal of communism.

 

[Fonds]

I really wonder why Presidents candidates are mostly so flipping old.

I mean sure it's cool to be involved at a later age but politics should be aimed at the younger generation.
These dinosaurs that get elected into office suffer from all the same grumpy old person tunnel vision are our grandparents do.

Getting a young president actually involves younger generations into politics. It's mostly them that will be affected by new policy in the end as well.

 

[Heroman]

I really wonder why Presidents candidates are mostly so flipping old.

I mean sure it's cool to be involved at a later age but politics should be aimed at the younger generation.
These dinosaurs that get elected into office suffer from all the same grumpy old person tunnel vision are our grandparents do.

Getting a young president actually involves younger generations into politics. It's mostly them that will be affected by new policy in the end as well.

It takes years to build up a reputation in politics and since to age to be president is 35 most young politicians don't have it yet.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I really wonder why Presidents candidates are mostly so flipping old.

I mean sure it's cool to be involved at a later age but politics should be aimed at the younger generation.
These dinosaurs that get elected into office suffer from all the same grumpy old person tunnel vision are our grandparents do.

Getting a young president actually involves younger generations into politics. It's mostly them that will be affected by new policy in the end as well.

It takes a long time to establish the credentials and experience to get elected.

If I run for governor at age 30, I'll probably be running against someone who has 1-3 decades of networking and life experience over me.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Sanders has voted to reduce nasa funding and has opposed liberal immigration reform.

didn't both of those have other bills attached to them that he didn't like?


I mean come on =/

 

[Fonds]

It takes a long time to establish the credentials and experience to get elected.

If I run for governor at age 30, I'll probably be running against someone who has 1-3 decades of networking and life experience over me.

It's a system that favours seniority, I agree. It's a shame in my opinion though.
Other countries have shown to have very capable younger heads of state that actually have a connection with a larger part of society.

 

[A Human Becoming]

I really wonder why Presidents candidates are mostly so flipping old.

I mean sure it's cool to be involved at a later age but politics should be aimed at the younger generation.
These dinosaurs that get elected into office suffer from all the same grumpy old person tunnel vision are our grandparents do.

Getting a young president actually involves younger generations into politics. It's mostly them that will be affected by new policy in the end as well.

Obama was only 47 when he became president, which I wouldn't consider old. Clinton was 46. How young exactly do you think they should be? Marco Rubio is 44 and Ted Cruz 45.

 

[tokkun]

What non-intervention?

The two most obvious examples are Obama's "red line" in Syria and the weak response to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.

Sudan is the other glaring one, but the US taking a lack of interest in Africa is nothing new.

I think there is a fair argument to be made as well that the US has had a weak response to non-traditional forms of aggression, such as state-sponsored electronic espionage, against both corporate and government targets.

 

[7DollarHagane]

I don't understand how its the government's issue to help someone who can't afford their rent or car payment.

It's the government's job to make sure roads and bridges are maintained, to make sure healthy drinking water is available. To make sure those who are disabled or infirm or elderly are taken care of.

But when did just not having enough money to pay your bills become the government's problem? Generations of our parents got by without extra government assistance or assistance just because you're living paycheck to paycheck.

I may be somewhat biased having worked in mortgage and credit card collections for years previously and hearing every weak and made up excuse for missing bills and then you see hundreds spent per month on overpriced chain restaurants and overpriced movie theaters and bars and casinos.

I don't think everyone is like that but I know a lot of people like that are out there who simply don't manage their money well or live outside their means. And I know I'm not perfect either, so don't take this as some kind of indictment on the poor. There are people who have been dealt shitty hands in life and I think there should be options for them to become productive members of society.

 

[Hylianhero777]

But when did just not having enough money to pay your bills become the government's problem? Generations of our parents got by without extra government assistance or assistance just because you're living paycheck to paycheck.

Not really.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Not really.

In this comparison are Walmart and McDonalds employees the migrant workers, farmhands, and industrial workers from the 1929s that were granted relief?

Also:

Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — DECEMBER 2015. Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 292,000 in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

We have a long way to go before we get to that kind of situation.

 

[Hylianhero777]

In this comparison are Walmart and McDonalds employees the migrant workers, farmhands, and industrial workers from the 1929s that were granted relief?

Also:




We have a long way to go before we get to that kind of situation.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the first point. You said that previous generations never had to rely on the government and I posted an example where they did have to, and doing so worked to great effect. Why does it matter who is being provided help?

As for the unemployment rate, I would say that it's not indicative of how many people are in need of assistance by itself. There are numerous people right now who are underemployed, or have a job but still can't afford to raise their families. I think the situations are very comparable.

 

[Drensch]

I really wonder why Presidents candidates are mostly so flipping old..

They generally aren't. People want to entrust the world to people who have some time and experience and have gone through some vetting. People who react and don't over react.

 

[Armaros]

It's interesting you brought this up and I agree with you here. Even if the majority of Bernie supporters back Hillary in the general election resulting in a win, I doubt supporters from the dem base as a whole will continue on the work and be actively engaged.

Just like how they stayed engaged with hope and change with Obama and came out for mid terms?

Twice even after his reelection?

People are seriously forgetting recent history.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I don't understand how its the government's issue to help someone who can't afford their rent or car payment.

It's the government's job to make sure roads and bridges are maintained, to make sure healthy drinking water is available. To make sure those who are disabled or infirm or elderly are taken care of.

But when did just not having enough money to pay your bills become the government's problem? Generations of our parents got by without extra government assistance or assistance just because you're living paycheck to paycheck.

I may be somewhat biased having worked in mortgage and credit card collections for years previously and hearing every weak and made up excuse for missing bills and then you see hundreds spent per month on overpriced chain restaurants and overpriced movie theaters and bars and casinos.

I don't think everyone is like that but I know a lot of people like that are out there who simply don't manage their money well or live outside their means. And I know I'm not perfect either, so don't take this as some kind of indictment on the poor. There are people who have been dealt shitty hands in life and I think there should be options for them to become productive members of society.

It's pretty simple really. One way or another you'll have to make the following equation: Helping people will either help the economy, or it worsen it.

If people can't afford housing, is it costlier to the nation to leave them with their problems, or help them? If the person has a child, what kind of impact does that have on that child, and what kind of impact will it have had on their children's children, and so on.

If that means we have to tax people who live well then what's the economic impact long term?

When you put those together, you can see how it makes perfect sense and how cheap it really is.

And why the government? Because the government is the people in power, and has an obligation to the people. Private enterprises have no obligation, only the purchase of profit.

The way you are framing this is that you want to use the government to punish people. It might be good for your ego to not be one of the "punished", but economically it would be disastrous, and you'd pay far more as a result.

In this comparison are Walmart and McDonalds employees the migrant workers, farmhands, and industrial workers from the 1929s that were granted relief?

Also:




We have a long way to go before we get to that kind of situation.

First of all, if a job is full time, it must pay a living wage. A parent who works at Wendy's can't be expected to work 40 hours a week with less than a living wage, and then on top of that have to take care of two kids and his or her sick mother in a house with mold making them all sick (a house that the landlord doesn't want to put a penny in but which is killing the people living in it; would be far better for the economy to be fined a significant sum than to let that continue to happen, effectively ruining people' lives the system spends so much money on). Someone in there is going to be negatively impacted in a way that will negatively affect the economy itself. If the kids are sick or can't be taken care of by their parent, and kids do need to be taken care of for various reasons unless you suggest the government handles that outside of school too, then they'll obviously have difficulties in school, which will translate into negative employment opportunities down the road.

So you say that parent should just get themselves a better job right? But someone has to do that job, a full time job btw so don't try that "student job" excuse. Plus, if you think it should be just for students, there's no law stating that, and what are people going to do if they have to pay the damn rent when a job is available? Let's make it for students only by law, then what? Are we not going to finance the education of the non-students while they study in school to get a better job and still have their kids and sick mother living in a murderous rented apartment to take of?

So it's clear that full time jobs need to pay living wages, for the good of the economy itself. A small price to pay, it's really a quality investment. Maybe by the time that person's kids are out of school those jobs won't exist anymore anyway, and thankfully they will have had the chance to learn whatever people need to learn in those days to get a job, likely a better one than their parent had.

Don't want the wages to rise? Fine, we can tax the companies to supply the needed cash through benefits instead. At the end of the day, someone has to provide the funds, and it's for the economy's long-term sake.

 

[Ether_Snake]

.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Wonder when Elizabeth Warren will jump in with that Bernie Sanders endorsement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmO8fvcWpkY

Before the Iowa caucuses, after?

 

[DrForester]

But when did just not having enough money to pay your bills become the government's problem?

Because Corporations are paying their employees less and less. The pay gap between CEO's and Employees widened and widened over the last 50 years with less and less money being paid to employees, and more and more kept by the guys at the top. If corporations refuse to reign in their greed, then the Government needs to step in.

 

[AngryNapkin]

Like I said, I can understand anti-interventionists preferring Sanders since he is clearly more of a Dove than Clinton. I do question how strong that sentiment is in the populace at large and even in the Democratic party, though. This is not 2008. We have had 8 years of non-intervention and I think that pendulum is swinging back in the opposite direction toward a more assertive and muscular foreign policy. I do worry about Trump going up against Sanders for this reason.



Well, I can agree that I do not have a lot of faith in American pragmatism when it comes to modern politics.

8 years of non intervention?

 

[pgtl_10]

8 years of non intervention?

Yeah that makes no sense.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Wonder when Elizabeth Warren will jump in with that Bernie Sanders endorsement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmO8fvcWpkY

Before the Iowa caucuses, after?

She won't unless it is overwhelmingly obvious Sanders is going to win. I doubt she'll endorse at all, and just endorse the winner instead.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Because Corporations are paying their employees less and less. The pay gap between CEO's and Employees widened and widened over the last 50 years with less and less money being paid to employees, and more and more kept by the guys at the top. If corporations refuse to reign in their greed, then the Government needs to step in.

Not to mention, employees in America work a lot and more compared to many other places in then world.

America is one of the few countries that don't have paid maternity leave. New mothers and fathers have to take vacation days just to be with a kid. There is nothing vacationy about having a baby. its madness! You need a dual maternity system that allows the mother and the father to have a set of days they can mix and match as they want. It's insane not having that.

Americas minimum wage is abysmal. People cannot earn a living by working 40 hours a week. It's abysmal. It's outragous. 50 years ago, somebody working 40 hours a week would be able to own their own house. Now, thanks to the housing and renting prices you will scrap most of your money away, because there has been made few protection laws that stops landlords from taking advantage of people.
We're already seeing booming cities all over the world (but particularly America) pushing out poorer and lower income people. It creates a areas and cities that only belong to the rich. It's a major problem for diversity and fairness and human decency.

Americas problematic relationship with unions (that I dont really understand) keeps people from being protected if they face harrasment or abuse, or if they get fired. Depending on the deal you get with your employer(lucky dice) your life will change drastically. Some will have benefits, and that is great, but others will not, and that is a disaster. Because if you get fired, you might not be on your feed. If you have to quit, if you get sick, if your family member gets sick, your fucked.
It's pretty clear that HR departments are there in the companys interest, not in the interest of the individual. You need protection from abusive bosses. Not in terms of suing people to death, or stuff like that, but being treated fairly is something every worker deserves and should have in a first world country.

Americans have a low amount of vacation days, while most first world countries have a minimum of 4-5 weeks a year. Which makes sense. Having paid vacations is a part of proper mental health and reduces stress and increases work productivity. You get less creativity, stamina and spontaneous employees by working them to death. America has to focus on being a high skilled innovative society that banks on being smart, not working to death. That would have been the process in a production-styled labor. That would be the process in China and India. But those jobs are declining in America as oversees relocation and automation takes hull.

 

[AngryNapkin]

It's pretty simple really. One way or another you'll have to make the following equation: Helping people will either help the economy, or it worsen it.

If people can't afford housing, is it costlier to the nation to leave them with their problems, or help them? If the person has a child, what kind of impact does that have on that child, and what kind of impact will it have had on their children's children, and so on.

If that means we have to tax people who live well then what's the economic impact long term?

When you put those together, you can see how it makes perfect sense and how cheap it really is.

And why the government? Because the government is the people in power, and has an obligation to the people. Private enterprises have no obligation, only the purchase of profit.

The way you are framing this is that you want to use the government to punish people. It might be good for your ego to not be one of the "punished", but economically it would be disastrous, and you'd pay far more as a result.



First of all, if a job is full time, it must pay a living wage. A parent who works at Wendy's can't be expected to work 40 hours a week with less than a living wage, and then on top of that have to take care of two kids and his or her sick mother in a house with mold making them all sick (a house that the landlord doesn't want to put a penny in but which is killing the people living in it; would be far better for the economy to be fined a significant sum than to let that continue to happen, effectively ruining people' lives the system spends so much money on). Someone in there is going to be negatively impacted in a way that will negatively affect the economy itself. If the kids are sick or can't be taken care of by their parent, and kids do need to be taken care of for various reasons unless you suggest the government handles that outside of school too, then they'll obviously have difficulties in school, which will translate into negative employment opportunities down the road.

So you say that parent should just get themselves a better job right? But someone has to do that job, a full time job btw so don't try that "student job" excuse. Plus, if you think it should be just for students, there's no law stating that, and what are people going to do if they have to pay the damn rent when a job is available? Let's make it for students only by law, then what? Are we not going to finance the education of the non-students while they study in school to get a better job and still have their kids and sick mother living in a murderous rented apartment to take of?

So it's clear that full time jobs need to pay living wages, for the good of the economy itself. A small price to pay, it's really a quality investment. Maybe by the time that person's kids are out of school those jobs won't exist anymore anyway, and thankfully they will have had the chance to learn whatever people need to learn in those days to get a job, likely a better one than their parent had.

Don't want the wages to rise? Fine, we can tax the companies to supply the needed cash through benefits instead. At the end of the day, someone has to provide the funds, and it's for the economy's long-term sake.

I'm probably going to get hammered but what the hell.

Whose fault is it that a 40 yr old mother of two still works fast food? It's not a company's fault that individual is in that situation. They have a position that needed to be filled and she agreed to that wage.

This can be applied to almost any demographic in any field. Ones life choices leads to their current situation on way or the other. No one seems to understand what it means to invest in ones own human capital.

 

[LouisaFerre]

I don't understand how its the government's issue to help someone who can't afford their rent or car payment.

It's the government's job to make sure roads and bridges are maintained, to make sure healthy drinking water is available. To make sure those who are disabled or infirm or elderly are taken care of.

But when did just not having enough money to pay your bills become the government's problem? Generations of our parents got by without extra government assistance or assistance just because you're living paycheck to paycheck.

I may be somewhat biased having worked in mortgage and credit card collections for years previously and hearing every weak and made up excuse for missing bills and then you see hundreds spent per month on overpriced chain restaurants and overpriced movie theaters and bars and casinos.

I don't think everyone is like that but I know a lot of people like that are out there who simply don't manage their money well or live outside their means. And I know I'm not perfect either, so don't take this as some kind of indictment on the poor. There are people who have been dealt shitty hands in life and I think there should be options for them to become productive members of society.

The moment a minimum wage was put into practice with the intention of it being livable, which it isn't anymore, as productivity increases but wages stay stagnant.

I mean, if you're talking exclusively about people squandering their money or what you think should be done, then w/e, but you can't really say that people not being paid livable amounts was never the government's problem, it's been too late for that for decades.

I'm probably going to get hammered but what the hell.

Whose fault is it that a 40 yr old mother of two still works fast food? It's not a company's fault that individual is in that situation. They have a position that needed to be filled and she agreed to that wage.

This can be applied to almost any demographic in any field. Ones life choices leads to their current situation on way or the other. No one seems to understand what it means to invest in ones own human capital.

I don't want to be hostile, but do you think we'd all be better off if we just left it that way?

 

[FreedomFighter]

Aye. I mean, look at this shit:

Someone please tell me how this shit is in anyway sustainable for the 99% of us that aren't super wealthy, especially with wages that have been stagnant for longer than most here on this forum have been alive.

Even the ACA has merely slowed down the already exorbitant cost of US healthcare. Barely anyone is even talking about the impending collapse of student loans and how an entire generation is being shut out of growing their wealth. I only hear "well this is a problem we should maybe look at some point in the future so here's a bunch of quarter measures to maaaaaybe consider". Don't even get me started on tens of millions of baby boomers retiring in the next decade and how that's going to affect healthcare.

As we currently are and how we will be projected to be in the future, I only see more pain and suffering if we don't address the real, fundamental problems inherent in the American system.

Stagnant wages, little shared wealth, crumbling infrastructure that people don't want to pay for, rising healthcare, crippling student loans and an education system overall that is highly unequal, and the further eradication of lower skilled jobs due to foreign labor and/or automation - all of this nonsense is happening now and all of this nonsense will get worse year by year. And all we can offer now is to merely patch it up. Funny thing about patches is that they tend to easily break when pressure is applied. And then people blame the patch itself instead of blaming why and how the hole even happened. And rinse repeat this stupid dance this country has been having for over 40 years now.

So what happens when the next recession piledrives us through the floor? Or I guess we can continue haggling over mere percentages in federal taxes while ignoring all the apocalyptic shit that is at our doorstep.

Great post and excellent questions being asked here.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I'm probably going to get hammered but what the hell.

Whose fault is it that a 40 yr old mother of two still works fast food? It's not a company's fault that individual is in that situation. They have a position that needed to be filled and she agreed to that wage.

This can be applied to almost any demographic in any field. Ones life choices leads to their current situation on way or the other. No one seems to understand what it means to invest in ones own human capital.

I'm not interested in hammering you or yell derogatory terms at you, because what you're saying is a sentiment shared by many people. My views on it is this;
I believe that when you look at many studies in sociology, you can see a pattern that most people. Something like 80-90% of people do not get to escape their caste. You say it's that womans fault.
But if she grew up with parents who weren't educated, if she grew up with parents who didn't have the money or the resources, to let her grow up to be a person who could be more than her parents- is it then really her fault?
Research tells us that, most people cannot escape it. There is a lot that points at the people who get ahead in life have privileged parents, with money, time and resources. They themselves are educated and can better pass it on to their kids.
That 40 year old women with two kids, will grow up to most likely not be anything more. The statistics overwhelmingly say, that if the kids don't have access, help and resources to higher learning, nothing will happen. They won't get out of it.

It is one of the overwhelming reasons why many minorities are spinning in a tornado in the ghetto. Most of them have nothing, and can't navigate them. It's exceptionally few who find the luck to latch on to something. It's why many black mens best shot at making it is through football, basketball or rap. It's why so many people in Africa sell themselves into slavery thinking they will be a soccer prodigy in Europe.
The truth of the matter is, nobody would get to where they are, if they hadn't had help. You, me, everyone else in the thread had resourceful people who helped us. If your parents are poor, working two jobs, over time, you're being neglected. If they didn't do well in school, they can't help you get the grades you need. And a lot of the public school system is not set up to help individual students. Teachers don't have the resources or the time for individual students and the curriculum is set up to pass tests- not to evaluate the worth, strength and weaknesses of a student.
And some do, but if kids and teenagers are not taught the values of giving it a go, they don't think they can do it. They give up because life has been a constant series of failures. Their parents can't do it, they've never done well themselves. It seems incomprehnsible difficult and foreign to work hard. Lack of motivation, discipline and exposure to what their dreams could be, leave them not wanting to even try. This is where the "poor people are lazy freeloaders" come in. Many people who do well have a lot of help. There are some who come from nothing and still manage to be massive successes, but they are a very very small group of people. Most people are struck in a dear-in-headlights-zone of not believing they can do it. That is how it is set up to fail.
That's not to say that there are not individuals who are lazy and uninterested. But those people are not confined to the poor. Lazy people are at every level, every race, gender and nationality.

 

[ugaboga232]

Friendly reminder that choice is a philosophical construct (in its classical sense) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

[Inuhanyou]

She won't unless it is overwhelmingly obvious Sanders is going to win. I doubt she'll endorse at all, and just endorse the winner instead.

She's not going to endorse Hillary, trust me.

 

[FreedomFighter]

She won't unless it is overwhelmingly obvious Sanders is going to win. I doubt she'll endorse at all, and just endorse the winner instead.

She'd endorse Sanders under those conditions (maybe even before). No way she endorses Hillary.

 

[sphagnum]

I'm probably going to get hammered but what the hell.

Whose fault is it that a 40 yr old mother of two still works fast food? It's not a company's fault that individual is in that situation. They have a position that needed to be filled and she agreed to that wage.

This can be applied to almost any demographic in any field. Ones life choices leads to their current situation on way or the other. No one seems to understand what it means to invest in ones own human capital.

Why do you automatically assume that a 40 year old mother of two is working in fast food because she made bad life choices? And should someone not have the right to life a fulfilling life because they made mistakes in their past?

Not all of us agree that wage labor in and of itself is a moral thing anyway.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Michael Moore on Sanders; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyF25yJlRHg

Cornel West; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2V7-Me7zI < Very nice!

Joe Biden; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li4PG7nmlyM

 

[7DollarHagane]

I'm probably going to get hammered but what the hell.

Whose fault is it that a 40 yr old mother of two still works fast food? It's not a company's fault that individual is in that situation. They have a position that needed to be filled and she agreed to that wage.

This can be applied to almost any demographic in any field. Ones life choices leads to their current situation on way or the other. No one seems to understand what it means to invest in ones own human capital.

Besides raising the minimum wage is probably only going to accelerate the automation of low skill jobs, so companies can reduce margins or avoid raising prices. Because that's the part nobody wants is for goods to cost double because they have to pay for a cashier to make $15/hr.

Because these companies are still beholden to shareholders who still want continued growth.

I think that the low cost of many goods in this country is not sustainable long term but I don't know what the solution is. If full time workers have to be paid $15 an hour they will stop hiring for full time. If workers over 21 have to be paid $15 an hour they will fire anyone who isn't management who is over 21.

It's a catch 22- the market has demanded and been happy with low cost goods and services like fast food and Walmart for the last 30 years but also are dissatisfied with the working conditions and wages. Well it can't go both ways. Because CEO salaries aren't enough to double minimum wage incomes. It's going to result in management salaries reduced, people who work as buyers or loss prevention or customer service call centers, and people running the website and logistics in the warehouses all reducing wages so greeters and cashiers can make $15/hr.

So what gives? Do the medium-skilled workers lose out to increase wages of the low skilled? Does everyone pay for it with increased prices? There is always a cause and effect.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Anyone thinks Biden is planning to run as VP if Bernie wins? Maybe if either wins? I think either candidates with Biden wins the presidency for sure.

I'm probably going to get hammered but what the hell.

Whose fault is it that a 40 yr old mother of two still works fast food? It's not a company's fault that individual is in that situation. They have a position that needed to be filled and she agreed to that wage.

This can be applied to almost any demographic in any field. Ones life choices leads to their current situation on way or the other. No one seems to understand what it means to invest in ones own human capital.

You can ask who's fault it is all you want, the government has a responsibility towards improving the nation. If the government said "it's your fault", the economic impacts of not acting would weaken our ability as a nation to do anything. It would be sabotage.

Second, those kids living a moldy apartment and who aren't taken care of adequately because their mother has her hands full or responsibilities, who aren't getting enough support from their teachers outside of class hours because the schools aren't funded adequately, is it those kids' faults? Meanwhile kids from someone well off are going to be quite fine.

You're providing no solution, you're making the situation worst. What I've described is in society's interest, your mentality is for those looking out solely for their own. In the past, you would have been banished from the village and then die in the wild.

And like I said, which you have ignore: someone has to do that burger joint's job! If you can't live on a full time job, you should get a living wage or the equivalent in benefits, otherwise it's a sentence, and someone has to do that job so someone would be getting sentenced, and for what? Just for trying to survive.

 

[border]

So let's say you were able to force Wendy's to pay a living wage big enough to cover one adult plus two children to all full time employees. Guess what? Now Wendy's will just stop hiring full time employees.

 

[sphagnum]

So let's say you were able to force Wendy's to pay a living wage big enough to cover one adult plus two children to all full time employees. Guess what? Now Wendy's will just stop hiring full time employees.

Good example to show that capitalism is insufficient for providing for the needs of workers.

 

[Ether_Snake]

So let's say you were able to force Wendy's to pay a living wage big enough to cover one adult plus two children to all full time employees. Guess what? Now Wendy's will just stop hiring full time employees.

So don't ask Wendy's to pay a full wage then, let them pay their crappy salary; it's a company, all companies can and should be taxed enough to supply the government with the necessary funds to finance services and benefits.

But don't come and complain that those workers are getting benefits so that they can get the equivalent of a living wage.

Let me guess, you'll say if companies are taxed too much they won't do business here? Great, we've a come a long way from "suck it and deal with it!" to discussing where tax money is spent, fiscal evasion, and corruption, so that we can properly finance services and benefits. Welcome aboard.

 

[ZealousD]

The conservative meme that nobody should be working in fast food but high school and college students is hilarious.

Apparently they want fast food places to be closed during weekday lunch rushes.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Starbucks is a pretty good example of a company that does pay over minimum wage and offers very good health benefits and is very successful.. It's also why a coffee is $5 or more there.

I do think that for long term sustainability more retailers and food service jobs need to improve the standard of living of their workers. But I think that can be made possible through the market and consumers deciding where to spend their money.

We already see if with Walmart and McDonalds both posting lower results and down stock prices.

Unfortunately a lot of retail jobs that had possibilities of management or advancement or self ownership even have been eliminated by amazon as well.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Starbucks is a pretty good example of a company that does pay over minimum wage and offers very good health benefits and is very successful.. It's also why a coffee is $5 or more there.

I do think that for long term sustainability more retailers and food service jobs need to improve the standard of living of their workers. But I think that can be made possible through the market and consumers deciding where to spend their money.

We already see if with Walmart and McDonalds both posting lower results and down stock prices.

Unfortunately a lot of retail jobs that had possibilities of management or advancement have been eliminated by amazon as well.

It doesn't implicitly have to be companies that give their employees benefits or high wages, but companies should not be trying to avoid paying taxes when those taxes are used to make up for that gap. To say no to increased wages, and no to increased corporate taxes or taxes on the rich, is just burning the village down.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

So let's say you were able to force Wendy's to pay a living wage big enough to cover one adult plus two children to all full time employees. Guess what? Now Wendy's will just stop hiring full time employees.

I fear that is going to happen, but that has nothing to do with Wendy's ability to pay. They will still plenty of millions of growth and revenue in every quarter.
They'll only not hire employees out of spite.
They might as well say 6 dollars. If they won't work for 6 dollars an hour, we will not have full time employees. Okay then.

But that's the sort of short term capitalistic saltyness a corporation will just have to bear with, because remember- 15 dollars minimum wage is over a number of years. And like how everything else gets more expensive on the years, like food, clothes, electricity, so to should your pay.
But it hasn't due to the endless pandering of corporations.
Wendys still made 2 over 2 billion in revenue in 2014. What they spend on human beings is nothing in their costs. It probably is not even close to what they spend in lobbying.




Now, if we take small businesses- That's where it might be more of a real situation. mom'n pop shops with 1-10 employees. Small businesses that barely can make the rounds. But it's the same answer as when you have costs elsewhere in your business- be it shipping, products, materials, safety, advertisement, upkeep, restocking, branding, focus groups, testing, whatever- you have to make it work. There is an associated cost with everything, and you simply have to compensate people and tell them that they have to pay humans beings an amount that allows them to live in modern society.
Remember, the minimum wage still wouldn't hit 15 dollars before 2020-2022 or something like that. The change has to be gradual to mimick the shock in society.

 

[Chariot]

The conservative meme that nobody should be working in fast food but high school and college students is hilarious.

Apparently they want fast food places to be closed during weekday lunch rushes.

Some people can't imagine a society that isn't build on the backs of an under class that has to do the necessary work and have take the blame for doing so.

 

[makingmusic476]

Starbucks is a pretty good example of a company that does pay over minimum wage and offers very good health benefits and is very successful.. It's also why a coffee is $5 or more there.

I do think that for long term sustainability more retailers and food service jobs need to improve the standard of living of their workers. But I think that can be made possible through the market and consumers deciding where to spend their money.

We already see if with Walmart and McDonalds both posting lower results and down stock prices.

Unfortunately a lot of retail jobs that had possibilities of management or advancement or self ownership even have been eliminated by amazon as well.

That sounds like a pretty typical coordination problem.

 

[A Human Becoming]

If any of ya'll think Bernie can win volunteer. You can make phone calls from home.

 

[Tesseract]

If any of ya'll think Bernie can win volunteer. You can make phone calls from home.

have been since day 1, alongside blm and other movements close to my heart

bernie is gonna do it, he is eisenhower's successor

 

[Polari]

I fear that is going to happen, but that has nothing to do with Wendy's ability to pay. They will still plenty of millions of growth and revenue in every quarter.
They'll only not hire employees out of spite.
They might as well say 6 dollars. If they won't work for 6 dollars an hour, we will not have full time employees. Okay then.

But that's the sort of short term capitalistic saltyness a corporation will just have to bear with, because remember- 15 dollars minimum wage is over a number of years. And like how everything else gets more expensive on the years, like food, clothes, electricity, so to should your pay.
But it hasn't due to the endless pandering of corporations.
Wendys still made 2 over 2 billion in revenue in 2014. What they spend on human beings is nothing in their costs. It probably is not even close to what they spend in lobbying.




Now, if we take small businesses- That's where it might be more of a real situation. mom'n pop shops with 1-10 employees. Small businesses that barely can make the rounds. But it's the same answer as when you have costs elsewhere in your business- be it shipping, products, materials, safety, advertisement, upkeep, restocking, branding, focus groups, testing, whatever- you have to make it work. There is an associated cost with everything, and you simply have to compensate people and tell them that they have to pay humans beings an amount that allows them to live in modern society.
Remember, the minimum wage still wouldn't hit 15 dollars before 2020-2022 or something like that. The change has to be gradual to mimick the shock in society.

It's a bit disingenuous to cite Wendy's revenue. Their profit was much lower, at $120 million. They'll likely look to further automate their business, as investing in technology becomes more appealing against the rising costs of labour.

In terms of "making it work" for small businesses, some will simply be no longer sustainable.

So this (in theory) leads to a reduction in jobs. The counter-argument is that there will be increased demand for goods and services in the market, driven by the additional income workers have from higher wages. So the competing notion is that it might even lead to more (and better paying) jobs. I have no idea.

This is where Sanders and someone like Trump differ. Trump wants to raise wages by instituting trade barriers and tariffs, reducing the advantage countries like China etc. have in cheap labour costs. He also wants to stop the flow of cheap labour that comes from illegal immigration, where workers are mostly unskilled and provide competition at the low end of the market, driving wages down.

Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage, which is a different means to (ostensibly) the same end. Both Sanders' and Trump's approaches are interesting though, in that they're both anathema to the free market doctrine which has dominated (both Democratic and Republican politics) since Reagan.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

It's a bit disingenuous to cite Wendy's revenue. Their profit was much lower, at $120 million. They'll likely look to further automate their business, as investing in technology becomes more appealing against the rising costs of labour.

In terms of "making it work" for small businesses, some will simply be no longer sustainable.

So this (in theory) leads to a reduction in jobs. The counter-argument is that there will be increased demand for goods and services in the market, driven by the additional income workers have from higher wages. So the competing notion is that it might even lead to more (and better paying) jobs. I have no idea.

I don't know much about Wendy (I just googled the revenue numbers) - You're right that profits and revenue are different, but the point still stands. There are a gazillion things a big chain like Wendy could cut back on. It does it all the time. People just don't pay attention because the variation of hikes and lows along the supply chain management is just used to be accepted. The idea of giving living decent wages to people is considered "fringe" which is just insane.

For smaller businesses. You have to do what you have to do to keep it going round. Either you have to cut costs elsewhere, or you have to increase the price of your products. The argument really is a loaded one from the republicans- they would love to have the minimum wage be 2-3 dollars, and then unemployment would be solved because there would be jobs for everyone.
Be that as it may, it's a morale question. And a question I think a lot of people are tuning into simply because, even on the republican side, everyone can see and feel poverty increasing and the middle class disappearing. Even the privileged people. It's a reality that people are going to grow up poorer than their parents.


We have unions to protect people from corporate greed. Because a business cannot be about people. It can only win by getting growth and money. That's why I think Wendy's will move towards automation anyway. Like 90% of all clothes is being made in Asia, it has nothing to do with ethics. It's simply cheaper. The vast majority of companies will do it as soon as it makes sense. Same with automation. So I consider many of those jobs already lost.
America has done well to have so many people in higher level education. There has been a massive shift, which means that the US have a large population of well educated (albeit in debt) people. IMO the focus needs to be on innovation and high wages. Seeking to be innovative is a skill that can keep America more on the forefront than taking back manual labor jobs back from China (trumps idea).

 

[Inuhanyou]

So let's say you were able to force Wendy's to pay a living wage big enough to cover one adult plus two children to all full time employees. Guess what? Now Wendy's will just stop hiring full time employees.

That's the problem with relying on corporate dominance when they only care about profiteering. Their shutting down of jobs in favor of automaton and part time workers have nothing to do with their resources or money making capability, only their profit motive.

We have had plenty of minimum raises in the past as well. Even Clinton's proposed 12 dollar minimum wage increase would make those corps do that.

People need to stop asking like actions in favor of the citizen should be undermined because of the monopolistic tendencies these forces have on our daily life. Its the same argument against "well we can't do anything to the banks cause they control all the money!" no shit, that's why they think they can get away with it.