Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Water John · 01-03-2021 7:42pm

Sanders intends skinning that cat another way and penalise cos who pay a too low a wage.

Tell me how · 01-03-2021 7:46pm

Water John wrote: »

Sanders intends skinning that cat another way and penalise cos who pay a too low a wage.

Read this morning on Washington Post that he has scrapped that plan as it is not a clear path and would probable lead to companies classifying workers as contractors in order to get around it.

Brussels Sprout · 03-03-2021 3:08pm

https://twitter.com/WRCB/status/1365807173238939650

When faced with an unexpected loss Republicans return to an old solution: If you don't like the result, change the electorate.

Tell me how · 03-03-2021 5:08pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

When faced with an unexpected loss Republicans return to an old solution: If you don't like the result, change the electorate.

This came out yesterday.

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1366809384647589890

Brussels Sprout · 04-03-2021 11:23am

I did a little digging there to look at the makeup of the 2 states houses in Georgia. So the Republicans have a healthy majority in both, which is a little bit surprising considering all members of both were elected on the same day as the Presidential Election last year when the state was practically tied on the Presidential level.

My first assumption was that the districts may have been gerrymandered. That cannot be ruled out (especially in the Legislature) but looking at the numbers, there was a more obvious problem for Democrats:

Presidential:

2,473,633, R: 2,461,854
State Legislature:

2,217,983, R: 2,338,983; Seats:

77, R: 103
State Senate:

2,013,405, R: 2,419,281; Seats:

22, R: 34

It appears that a significant number of Biden voters did not vote down ballot, especially in state Senate races.

Quin_Dub · 04-03-2021 11:51am

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I did a little digging there to look at the makeup of the 2 states houses in Georgia. So the Republicans have a healthy majority in both, which is a little bit surprising considering all members of both were elected on the same day as the Presidential Election last year when the state was practically tied on the Presidential level.

My first assumption was that the districts may have been gerrymandered. That cannot be ruled out (especially in the Legislature) but looking at the numbers, there was a more obvious problem for Democrats:

Presidential: 2,473,633, R: 2,461,854
State Legislature: 2,217,983, R: 2,338,983; Seats: 77, R: 103
State Senate: 2,013,405, R: 2,419,281; Seats: 22, R: 34

It appears that a significant number of Biden voters did not vote down ballot, especially in state Senate races.

There's clear evidence in multiple States across the country of the down ballot GOP candidates out-performing Trump.

Without question there were a cohort of centrist GOP voters that voted Biden/Harris at the top and GOP the rest of the way down purely to vote Trump out.

The Democrats cannot rely on those voters in 2022 or 2024 (unless Trump runs again) , allied to the rampant voter suppression plans underway in GOP led State legislatures across the country , the Democrats have their work cut out for them no doubt.

The sad reality is that Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema , more than any others are likely to be a key reason for the Democrats losing the Senate and possibly the house in 2022 if they continue their opposition to the removal of the filibuster.

The "For the people" voting act passed yesterday in the House hasn't a hope in hell of reaching the 60 vote margin required in the Senate with the filibuster in place.

If that doesn't get passed , the GOP will gut voting rights across the country and will gerrymander the districts beyond all recognition.

AbusesToilets · 04-03-2021 1:35pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There's clear evidence in multiple States across the country of the down ballot GOP candidates out-performing Trump.

Without question there were a cohort of centrist GOP voters that voted Biden/Harris at the top and GOP the rest of the way down purely to vote Trump out.

The Democrats cannot rely on those voters in 2022 or 2024 (unless Trump runs again) , allied to the rampant voter suppression plans underway in GOP led State legislatures across the country , the Democrats have their work cut out for them no doubt.

The sad reality is that Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema , more than any others are likely to be a key reason for the Democrats losing the Senate and possibly the house in 2022 if they continue their opposition to the removal of the filibuster.

The "For the people" voting act passed yesterday in the House hasn't a hope in hell of reaching the 60 vote margin required in the Senate with the filibuster in place.

If that doesn't get passed , the GOP will gut voting rights across the country and will gerrymander the districts beyond all recognition.

If the Senate Dems can't see the benefit to them of passing the Voting bill, then there's no hope for the party, or the country. Outside of serious climate legislation, it might be the single most important bill they could pass.

Quin_Dub · 04-03-2021 2:11pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If the Senate Dems can't see the benefit to them of passing the Voting bill, then there's no hope for the party, or the country. Outside of serious climate legislation, it might be the single most important bill they could pass.

Absolutely no question - The Voting legislation is the single biggest thing that they could achieve.

Bigger than Healthcare in the context of the direction of the country.

If the GOP cannot rely on gerrymandering and voter suppression to get elected they will actually have to move back toward the majority positions on a lot of things.

There are healthy public majorities in support of things like

Healthcare
Gun Control
Taxation (specifically taxes on wealth etc.)

And much more

If the GOP actually had to win peoples support instead of just blocking their dissenters access to voting the US would be quite a different place.

eire4 · 04-03-2021 7:43pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely no question - The Voting legislation is the single biggest thing that they could achieve.

Bigger than Healthcare in the context of the direction of the country.

If the GOP cannot rely on gerrymandering and voter suppression to get elected they will actually have to move back toward the majority positions on a lot of things.

There are healthy public majorities in support of things like

Healthcare
Gun Control
Taxation (specifically taxes on wealth etc.)

And much more

If the GOP actually had to win peoples support instead of just blocking their dissenters access to voting the US would be quite a different place.

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head there.

Manic Moran · 05-03-2021 3:34pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely no question - The Voting legislation is the single biggest thing that they could achieve.

Bigger than Healthcare in the context of the direction of the country.

Agreed. Arguably the legislation still needs tweaking, but if they can get lawful legislation past, can't hurt. There are a few parts of the legislation I'm not convinced are actually Constitutional, but I guess the system will work that out over time.

If the GOP cannot rely on gerrymandering and voter suppression to get elected they will actually have to move back toward the majority positions on a lot of things.

Applies to both parties. I would remind you, for example, that the Rucho case in SCOTUS covered both Republican-controlled NC and Democrat-controlled MD.

There are healthy public majorities in support of things like

Healthcare
Gun Control
Taxation (specifically taxes on wealth etc.)

The devil is in the details.
Healthcare: Support for single payer? ACA? Cost control? Removal of constraints on State systems?
Gun control: Background checks? Weapon types? Magazine capacity?
Taxation: State tax exemption limits? Highest tax bracket percentage? Highest tax bracket dollar value?

Some who are in favour of one detail may be vehemently against another. The trick is the question of whether or not you can get enough people to agree on the specifics in the bill, and proposed legislation these days seems to be grand, sweeping types, not narrowly tailored ones. So while there may well be a 'healthy public majority' in favor of reform, is there enough of a majority for the specific reform you're looking at? And can you 'buy off' trades? For example, "I"ll give you national CCW reciprocity in exchange for universal background checks?" (History says you can, but recent practice says they won't)

Now, if you want GOP silliness, the prohibition on a mask mandate in Texas is a case in point. Removing the State mandate, I can see, but prohibiting the individual counties from enforcing one if they deem it suitable is a purely political move to pander to the less centrist part of the Republican voters.

Quin_Dub · 05-03-2021 4:46pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Agreed. Arguably the legislation still needs tweaking, but if they can get lawful legislation past, can't hurt. There are a few parts of the legislation I'm not convinced are actually Constitutional, but I guess the system will work that out over time.

For sure.. It's a major step in the right direction however and no doubt some parts will get challenged in the courts and should be adjusted accordingly.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Applies to both parties. I would remind you, for example, that the Rucho case in SCOTUS covered both Republican-controlled NC and Democrat-controlled MD.

On the Gerrymandering front , agreed - It's been tit for tat for quite a while. Although in recent years given the general level of Statehouse control it's been mostly the GOP.

However in terms of "voting access" legislation , it has been exclusively the GOP that have been working to limit access to voting and increase the burden on the voter.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The devil is in the details.
Healthcare: Support for single payer? ACA? Cost control? Removal of constraints on State systems?
Gun control: Background checks? Weapon types? Magazine capacity?
Taxation: State tax exemption limits? Highest tax bracket percentage? Highest tax bracket dollar value?

Some who are in favour of one detail may be vehemently against another. The trick is the question of whether or not you can get enough people to agree on the specifics in the bill, and proposed legislation these days seems to be grand, sweeping types, not narrowly tailored ones. So while there may well be a 'healthy public majority' in favor of reform, is there enough of a majority for the specific reform you're looking at? And can you 'buy off' trades? For example, "I"ll give you national CCW reciprocity in exchange for universal background checks?" (History says you can, but recent practice says they won't)

You are absolutely correct, lots of nuance and detail to be worked out - However if the GOP had to compete on actual policy , then they'd have to actually come up with detailed polices and find consensus and actually work on this stuff.

I mean look at healthcare - For the last 10 years their entire platform has just been "Repeal Obamacare" - Despite endless opportunity to present alternatives , they simply haven't bothered to even try.

Same with Gun control - The GOP position is the blindly shout "Protect the Second amendment!!!!!" and not even try to find common ground or to present alternatives.

A majority of people want changes to the current rules to tighten access up , solutions won't be easy , but they could at least come to the table and try.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Now, if you want GOP silliness, the prohibition on a mask mandate in Texas is a case in point. Removing the State mandate, I can see, but prohibiting the individual counties from enforcing one if they deem it suitable is a purely political move to pander to the less centrist part of the Republican voters.

Agreed - It's just petty , but it's consistent with the GOP approach when in opposition - They are the "Party of No".

Manic Moran · 05-03-2021 6:22pm

You are absolutely correct, lots of nuance and detail to be worked out - However if the GOP had to compete on actual policy , then they'd have to actually come up with detailed polices and find consensus and actually work on this stuff.

I mean look at healthcare - For the last 10 years their entire platform has just been "Repeal Obamacare" - Despite endless opportunity to present alternatives , they simply haven't bothered to even try.

Same with Gun control - The GOP position is the blindly shout "Protect the Second amendment!!!!!" and not even try to find common ground or to present alternatives.

A majority of people want changes to the current rules to tighten access up , solutions won't be easy , but they could at least come to the table and try.

Not entirely convinced I agree with you on this one.
ACA, yes, they have proven unable to come up with a policy.
Taxation, they certainly did, and they passed it. Whether Democrats approve of it or not, it was a policy.
Guns, they only come up with policies when pressed to do so. For example, after Sandy Hook, they made a counter proposal to enact universal background checks. Democrats didn’t like it (though it was simpler/less intrusive), preferred to go with a different, supposedly “bi partisan” (I.e. one Republican co-sponsored) deal, and the whole opportunity failed. They have also expressed at least some willingness to do some horse trading, such as with the aforementioned CCW reciprocity proposal.

Both sides have developed “our way or the highway” attitudes, and ultimately, it comes down to “what do the legislators do when their party as a whole want to go one way, but their constituents want to go another?” As a matter of principle, should Manchin vote for, for example, a Democrat supported encompassing gun control law because he’s a Democrat, even though the West Virginians who elected him don’t want one, but would accept a more limited law? I would think the answer is “no”, and lambasting him as obstructionist or a hindrance to the Democratic Party likely does him a disservice.(not saying you do that, just some will attack him). I don’t think those centrist votes are deliberately just trying to be difficult, but are trying as best to meet the requirements of the people who can fire them. The DNC can’t fire Manchin. W Virginian voters can and, so far, seem to like him

Tell me how · 05-03-2021 8:02pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Both sides have developed “our way or the highway” attitudes, and ultimately, it comes down to “what do the legislators do when their party as a whole want to go one way, but their constituents want to go another?” As a matter of principle, should Manchin vote for, for example, a Democrat supported encompassing gun control law because he’s a Democrat, even though the West Virginians who elected him don’t want one, but would accept a more limited law? I would think the answer is “no”, and lambasting him as obstructionist or a hindrance to the Democratic Party likely does him a disservice.(not saying you do that, just some will attack him). I don’t think those centrist votes are deliberately just trying to be difficult, but are trying as best to meet the requirements of the people who can fire them. The DNC can’t fire Manchin. W Virginian voters can and, so far, seem to like him

And yet no Republican voted in favour either. Even those in southern states whose electorates would most definitely benefit from a federally mandated wage increase.

And we have seen state level RNC censure of people who voted against Trump in relation to Jan 6th attacks so both parties do not behave the same in this respect, if they did, Dem senators would have come under much stronger pressure to vote in line with Bidens interests.

It has in the past been a weak point of the Democrat party that they are burdened with a more morally upstanding practice of governance than their counterparts (not perfect or holiest of holy by any measure) but when compared with the GOP then much closer to being so.

Rjd2 · 06-03-2021 1:07am

I've been supportive of Sinema before as Arizona is not exactly California , but this is dismal from her.

I'd hope Biden reads the riot act to her.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1367956239863345152

Itssoeasy · 06-03-2021 2:16am

What was that meant to be ? John McCain she isn’t. The only thing I can think is she’s not up for re-election for six more years because if she’s up earlier than that she wants to lose her seat with stunts like that. A GOP(or a democratic primary challenger) can just play that clip on a loop and she’ll rightly be hammered for it.

It’s clear the minimum wage was never going to be part of this bill. The democrats in the senate should take the advice of Lawrence o donnell who was chief of staff of the senate finance committee in the 1990s and knows the rules of the senate and stick the wage increase in a must pass bill. Simple.

Rjd2 · 06-03-2021 2:49am

Think she is up again in 2024?

Won't do her any harm with the GOP base as they are not exactly the most progressive on the minimum wage, but its going to get replayed a lot in a primary.

I think at times the obsession with been viral is something that is rotten in politics, this and some of the more absurd rantings about cancel culture this week from GOP people.

TomOnBoard · 06-03-2021 3:30am

Rjd2 wrote: »

I've been supportive of Sinema before as Arizona is not exactly California , but this is dismal from her.

I'd hope Biden reads the riot act to her.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1367956239863345152

Agreed! While there are 7 Dems who wouldn't go along with the Minimum Wage proposal, Sinema's crass theatrics were quite disgusting. Trying to pull a John Mc Cain thumbs down on this proposal was an abject failure, and she'll only be remembered for voting against basic living wages for people in need, while she chugs her $175k plus multiple bennies as a Senator.

Itssoeasy · 06-03-2021 12:09pm

So it seems that it’s sexist to talk about the way senator sinema cast her vote ? Maybe it wasn’t but I remember a time when people didn’t throw around terms so loosely to the point they lost their meaning. It’s not sexist in any way to ask the question why she felt the need to vote no in the way she did. It added nothing to her vote as it’s still recorded as a no.

Timberrrrrrrr · 06-03-2021 12:39pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So it seems that it’s sexist to talk about the way senator sinema cast her vote ? Maybe it wasn’t but I remember a time when people didn’t throw around terms so loosely to the point they lost their meaning. It’s not sexist in any way to ask the question why she felt the need to vote no in the way she did. It added nothing to her vote as it’s still recorded as a no.

Who is making this claim?

Itssoeasy · 06-03-2021 2:20pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Who is making this claim?

Her spokesperson is saying that criticism of the senator is sexism.

Timberrrrrrrr · 06-03-2021 2:26pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Her spokesperson is saying that criticism of the senator is sexism.

So one spokesperson? Does that person's opinion mean its sexism or is it just someone's opinion?

Does that mean it is sexism in your eyes?

Itssoeasy · 06-03-2021 2:46pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So one spokesperson? Does that person's opinion mean its sexism or is it just someone's opinion?

Does that mean it is sexism in your eyes?

****ing tap dancing Christ. I’m stating what a spokesperson for the senator from the state of Arizona said in response to people criticising her for the not how she voted but what she did when voting.

I’d assume that a spokesperson for a member of congress would be speaking for the person they work when making comments like that.

Do you really not understand what my original post meant ?

Manic Moran · 06-03-2021 7:59pm

Tell me how wrote: »

And yet no Republican voted in favour either. Even those in southern states whose electorates would most definitely benefit from a federally mandated wage increase.

They could vote against it either because they disagree on principle (For example, I disagree with the idea of removing the state income tax exemption tax, even though it would reduce my federal tax bill by several thousand dollars), or because they aren't so sure about the benefit for a minimum wage increase.

For example, just under half the employees in the US are employed by small businesses. The average small business in the US employs 10 people, and the average small business owner makes about $70k/year. That's a nationwide stat, they change by state. https://smallbiztrends.com/small-business-statistics

For the Southern states you say will most benefit from an increase: From here, an incorporated small business averages a profit of $44k in Arkansas, $41k in West Virginia, $46.5k in Mississippi. (unincorporated make less, but they likely won't have employees). Let's say we have a business with only four employees, not the nationwide average of 10, and they are currently making $10/hr, which is not exactly poverty line in Missouri or West Virginia. Definitely not livable in much of California or Maryland, but we're talking about the South, here.

If they have 40-hour weeks, the increase in pay for those four employees will be from $20,800/head to $31,200/head. (The current average salary in Manchin's WV is $25,000, by way of comparison). By 4x employees, that's an increases in wages to be paid of $41,600 (not counting other increases such as any 401k matching), which obviously has to eat into the owner's profits, which are only $41k to begin with, and he has to live as well!

So, if you ware in West Virginia and are either a small business owner, or an employee of a small business, what do you think is the most likely result of the increase in minimum wage? Sure, increase in pricing will remedy some of that, but the owner's going to make other changes to his largest expense.

Yes, I am aware that there are studies which show that increases in minimum wages don't increase unemployment or reduce working hours. There are also studies which show that they do. This article goes over a large bulk of the debate.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/economism-and-the-minimum-wage/513155/

The bottom line, though, is that regardless of what the -nationwide- statistics may show, be they for good or ill, the small business owner and his (average of) 10 employees aren't concerned about what happens to the equilibrium of the economy after a year or two when everything settles down. They're worried about paying the bills next month which they are currently managing. A lot of them are already very concerned about paying bills because of the state of the economy after COVID. Someone needs to explain to them the logic by which they will be reasonably sure to have equal or better income the month after it takes effect, not a year or two down the line.

If the denizens of a large, expensive city need a minimum wage increase, then go ahead for them. But much of the South is cheap enough to live in that they don't need to move to $15/hour to live.

AbusesToilets · 06-03-2021 8:35pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

They could vote against it either because they disagree on principle (For example, I disagree with the idea of removing the state income tax exemption tax, even though it would reduce my federal tax bill by several thousand dollars), or because they aren't so sure about the benefit for a minimum wage increase.

For example, just under half the employees in the US are employed by small businesses. The average small business in the US employs 10 people, and the average small business owner makes about $70k/year. That's a nationwide stat, they change by state. https://smallbiztrends.com/small-business-statistics

For the Southern states you say will most benefit from an increase: From here, an incorporated small business averages a profit of $44k in Arkansas, $41k in West Virginia, $46.5k in Mississippi. (unincorporated make less, but they likely won't have employees). Let's say we have a business with only four employees, not the nationwide average of 10, and they are currently making $10/hr, which is not exactly poverty line in Missouri or West Virginia. Definitely not livable in much of California or Maryland, but we're talking about the South, here.

If they have 40-hour weeks, the increase in pay for those four employees will be from $20,800/head to $31,200/head. (The current average salary in Manchin's WV is $25,000, by way of comparison). By 4x employees, that's an increases in wages to be paid of $41,600 (not counting other increases such as any 401k matching), which obviously has to eat into the owner's profits, which are only $41k to begin with, and he has to live as well!

So, if you ware in West Virginia and are either a small business owner, or an employee of a small business, what do you think is the most likely result of the increase in minimum wage? Sure, increase in pricing will remedy some of that, but the owner's going to make other changes to his largest expense.

Yes, I am aware that there are studies which show that increases in minimum wages don't increase unemployment or reduce working hours. There are also studies which show that they do. This article goes over a large bulk of the debate.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/economism-and-the-minimum-wage/513155/

The bottom line, though, is that regardless of what the -nationwide- statistics may show, be they for good or ill, the small business owner and his (average of) 10 employees aren't concerned about what happens to the equilibrium of the economy after a year or two when everything settles down. They're worried about paying the bills next month which they are currently managing. A lot of them are already very concerned about paying bills because of the state of the economy after COVID. Someone needs to explain to them the logic by which they will be reasonably sure to have equal or better income the month after it takes effect, not a year or two down the line.

If the denizens of a large, expensive city need a minimum wage increase, then go ahead for them. But much of the South is cheap enough to live in that they don't need to move to $15/hour to live.

If businesses can't afford to pay their employees a proper wage, then their business model is predicated on worker exploitation. That whole line of argument is evidence of how rigged the economy is against workers. Businesses have profited by undervaluing labor, either by suppressing wages, or exporting production overseas.

The minimum wage would be closer to $24 if it had kept pace with production and inflation.

TomOnBoard · 06-03-2021 10:30pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If businesses can't afford to pay their employees a proper wage, then their business model is predicated on worker exploitation. That whole line of argument is evidence of how rigged the economy is against workers. Businesses have profited by undervaluing labor, either by suppressing wages, or exporting production overseas.

The minimum wage would be closer to $24 if it had kept pace with production and inflation.

Furthermore, the proposal would have involved arriving at $15 by 2025. The current federal minimum is $7.25, and that hasn't changed in a decade. The immediate effect would be to increase it to $9.50 this year, and increase it in steps to $15 by 2025. I don't believe that ANYONE in ANY state deserves to have his/her labour used to generate profits for less than $9.50 an hour in this day and age. Continuation of a $7.25 hourly rate, whether its in WV or CA in 2021 is borderline slavery, in a country with pathetic social support systems. Disgusting!

Manic Moran · 06-03-2021 11:35pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If businesses can't afford to pay their employees a proper wage, then their business model is predicated on worker exploitation. That whole line of argument is evidence of how rigged the economy is against workers. Businesses have profited by undervaluing labor, either by suppressing wages, or exporting production overseas.

The minimum wage would be closer to $24 if it had kept pace with production and inflation.

Define "a proper wage"? Further, do so in either Huntington, WV (Second city of the State) where it looks like (going to Zillow) a reasonable 3bedroom goes for a mortgage of $500/mo, and in Dublin, CA (SF area, where a similar 3 bedroom goes for a mortgage of about $5,000/mo.) I suspect you will agree that whatever it is, the number is going to be radically different between the two areas.

What the minimum wage would be is irrelevant if the number was incorrectly skewed to begin with.

duploelabs · 07-03-2021 12:07am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Define "a proper wage"? Further, do so in either Huntington, WV (Second city of the State) where it looks like (going to Zillow) a reasonable 3bedroom goes for a mortgage of $500/mo, and in Dublin, CA (SF area, where a similar 3 bedroom goes for a mortgage of about $5,000/mo.) I suspect you will agree that whatever it is, the number is going to be radically different between the two areas.

What the minimum wage would be is irrelevant if the number was incorrectly skewed to begin with.

Even by your first example, it'd be hard for a family of four with two working parents both on a minimum wage of $15ph to get by with that mortgage

07-03-2021 12:21am

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I did a little digging there to look at the makeup of the 2 states houses in Georgia. So the Republicans have a healthy majority in both, which is a little bit surprising considering all members of both were elected on the same day as the Presidential Election last year when the state was practically tied on the Presidential level.

My first assumption was that the districts may have been gerrymandered. That cannot be ruled out (especially in the Legislature) but looking at the numbers, there was a more obvious problem for Democrats:

Presidential: 2,473,633, R: 2,461,854
State Legislature: 2,217,983, R: 2,338,983; Seats: 77, R: 103
State Senate: 2,013,405, R: 2,419,281; Seats: 22, R: 34

It appears that a significant number of Biden voters did not vote down ballot, especially in state Senate races.

The Trump effect is different in different places. Parts of the South he doesn't really resonate and in certain places he turns off traditional Republican voters. Up in the Rust Belt he draws in a bunch of voters who may not have been Democrats but definitely weren't Republicans 6/7 years ago.

TomOnBoard · 07-03-2021 1:02am

duploelabs wrote: »

Even by your first example, it'd be hard for a family of four with two working parents both on a minimum wage of $15ph to get by with that mortgage

The San Francisco example is also disingenuous and irrelevant to the proposal. The Federal Minimum wage is a floor number that says that no-one in America should earn less than that number. In San Francisco, the minimum wage is already €16.07 and a CPI increase is due to be applied in July. So, the proposed rates won't apply in California (and many other States) anyway!

So, back to the point: The Federally mandated MINIMUM wage should be $9.50 in 2021, rising to $15 by 2025 in those States where the $7.25 rate currently applies.

That number should also be seen in the context of how American industry has fared since it was set at $7.25 a decade ago. The valuations of all companies on the Dow Jones has risen substantially over that decade. The Dow rose from 12,000 in Jan 2011 to $31,000 in Jan 2021 showing the market valuations of those companies to have increased by a staggering 158% in that time. And folks have a problem with MINIMUM labour rates being increased by 31% after 10 years with no increases??

Sheer profiteering on a national level!

AbusesToilets · 07-03-2021 4:04am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The San Francisco example is also disingenuous and irrelevant to the proposal. The Federal Minimum wage is a floor number that says that no-one in America should earn less than that number. In San Francisco, the minimum wage is already €16.07 and a CPI increase is due to be applied in July. So, the proposed rates won't apply in California (and many other States) anyway!

So, back to the point: The Federally mandated MINIMUM wage should be $9.50 in 2021, rising to $15 by 2025 in those States where the $7.25 rate currently applies.

That number should also be seen in the context of how American industry has fared since it was set at $7.25 a decade ago. The valuations of all companies on the Dow Jones has risen substantially over that decade. The Dow rose from 12,000 in Jan 2011 to $31,000 in Jan 2021 showing the market valuations of those companies to have increased by a staggering 158% in that time. And folks have a problem with MINIMUM labour rates being increased by 31% after 10 years with no increases??

Sheer profiteering on a national level!

American workers earned more in real money terms decades ago. Read a post elsewhere from an engineer, who relayed his experience. Worked in a factory as a laborer in his 20s, earning $20 per hour. Cut to present time, working as a engineer, electrical iirc, in a management position, earning $15 per hour.

Between suppressed wages and the devaluation of the Dollar, that isn't an uncommon situation. How can anyone think it's an acceptable state of affairs is beyond me.

Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Comments