|
|
CA Min Wage Increase Signed Into Law
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-01 00:55:12
Quote: (That warehouse worker? He needs to know how to operate a forklift and other heavy machinery, know the computerized inventory system and be meticulous and dependable so things don't get lost. It's also very physically demanding and for some companies the work happens at 2nd or 3rd shift.)
Agree with most of what your saying with the exception of this. Heavy machinery operators get paid quite a bit higher then minimum wage. Also the same worker doesn't do all those things, their separated into different fields with officer workers not being the same people driving the fork lift.
A retail store I managed a few years ago paid all their warehouse people minimum wage. This included the people who were operating heavy machinery.
It really depends on the company and what they can get away with paying.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-01 01:54:39
Apparently Kara thinks that doing the absolute minimum in life should land oneself right into the center of the middle class.
That serves as a heightened example to how entitled some people feel their existence to be.
First: I never said that.
Second: I willingly live in a country with some of the highest tax rates in the world because there is a difference when people are able to make a decent wage and live with very, very little poverty. Denmark has no minimum wage but has unions, employee associations, and strict labor laws.
Third: you need to read up on middle class income brackets and average cost of living. They are two different things. Minimum wage does not cover the average cost of living in CA and even with this increase it will not cover that.
Fourth: I stated that I do not like minimum wage laws. I also do not like companies choosing their own wage policies for low level positions because, historically, both of these policies end badly in the US.
Five: minimum wage is a band-aid and only treats a symptom of several major problems.
Edited~
[+]
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-10-01 02:44:12
Minimum wage does not cover the average cost of living in CA and even with this increase it will not cover that.
It does in some areas, even some areas of LA County. And that's a problem. Since this mininum wage primarily impacts the supposed poverty bracket it literally is turning this pseudo-poor class and pushing them along side the middle class in some areas.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-01 04:10:50
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Minimum wage does not cover the average cost of living in CA and even with this increase it will not cover that.
It does in some areas, even some areas of LA County. And that's a problem. Since this mininum wage primarily impacts the supposed poverty bracket it literally is turning this pseudo-poor class and pushing them along side the middle class in some areas.
Single person, no dependents
Minimum wage is $8 an hour
$320 a week
$16,640 a year (before taxes)
-social security/medicade/medicare (7.65%)
-federal (15%)
-state (2% + $71.24)
Total take home: $12,467
At $10 an hour
$400 a week
$20,800 a year (before taxes)
-social security/medicade/medicare (7.65%)
-federal (15%)
-state (4% + $266.56)
Total take home: $14,900
Average cost of living in CA? I've read from $11+ per hour.
Maybe you can provide some numbers for the average cost of living in CA, broken down by city or county.
[+]
 Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2013-10-01 05:36:53
Minimum wage will never cover the averaged cost of living across it's area. Raising it will in turn raise the cost of living slightly, you won't see massive inflation but your chasing your tail. It's simple impossible to employ every individual to their fullest in a service / knowledge based economy as you'll always have those without the skills required.
Honestly I'm against minimum wage laws in general, they put an artificial floor to the unskilled / lowly skilled labor market. Supply / demand is what would normally set that bar and by jacking up the floor you just end up reducing the demand for low skill labor. The only way around it is using illegal undocumented labor which *surprisingly* is so common now.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-01 07:00:10
It's garbage because you made up a bunch of ***I didn't say or even remotely imply. Seriously, stop doing that. You've quickly become the most aggravating person here to debate with and that's saying something because we actually have a paranoid delusional who pops in here periodically.
But you did imply. Maybe you should read your own writing.
Quote: There was nothing of substance in the book review nor any reference to a journal article. I will read the proper citation, thank you very much.
You didn't even read the article at all. I'm starting to wonder if you even can read or not.
Quote: It screams insecurity because you can't seem to make a point without pretending it's beyond our comprehension. Yes, we're not all accountants (thankfully!), but most of us here are capable of following a logical argument.
Well, until you can prove that you can understand a simple article like the one I referenced, then I will continue to point out that your reading comprehension is that of an 8th grader.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-01 08:18:42
A retail store I managed a few years ago paid all their warehouse people minimum wage. This included the people who were operating heavy machinery.
It really depends on the company and what they can get away with paying. A) Denmark is different than USA.
B) Ok, you are correct, it is what the company pays. That is what is so nice about supply and demand. If company A pays minimum wage for warehouse work and company B pays minimum wage + $1.00 an hour for the same work, who do you think is going to get the applications? Who do you think is going to get the retention? Who do you think is going to have the higher cost of employment?
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-01 08:20:32
A retail store I managed a few years ago paid all their warehouse people minimum wage. This included the people who were operating heavy machinery.
It really depends on the company and what they can get away with paying. A) Denmark is different than USA.
B) Ok, you are correct, it is what the company pays. That is what is so nice about supply and demand. If company A pays minimum wage for warehouse work and company B pays minimum wage + $1.00 an hour for the same work, who do you think is going to get the applications? Who do you think is going to get the retention? Who do you think is going to have the higher cost of employment?
This was in the US, in GA specifically. Denmark does not have minimum wage.
Supply and demand theory is based on several assumptions being met, one specifically about perfect information. A person has to know that one place pays better than another.
[+]
 Caitsith.Zahrah
Server: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2013-10-01 08:53:34
Apparently Kara thinks that doing the absolute minimum in life should land oneself right into the center of the middle class.
That serves as a heightened example to how entitled some people feel their existence to be.
First: I never said that.
Second: I willingly live in a country with some of the highest tax rates in the world because there is a difference when people are able to make a decent wage and live with very, very little poverty. Denmark has no minimum wage but has unions, employee associations, and strict labor laws.
Third: you need to read up on middle class income brackets and average cost of living. They are two different things. Minimum wage does not cover the average cost of living in CA and even with this increase it will not cover that.
Fourth: I stated that I do not like minimum wage laws. I also do not like companies choosing their own wage policies for low level positions because, historically, both of these policies end badly in the US.
Five: minimum wage is a band-aid and only treats a symptom of several major problems.
Edited~
Still reading through, but I had to stop here.
I'm not completely sure, but I think that most Northern European countries have a similar system in which even retail and food service require a type of trade school (I know Germany does/did). Thus, they can ensure even jobs that we typically view as minimum-wage here are allowed an actual yearly salary. Despite the higher tax, everyone is a skilled worker.
The school system is even designed where at age thirteen or so you are divided into the equivalent of an AP school, regular school, and a sort of bottom rung school. This is more or less to accommodate those by their specific capacity and their specific future career. There is leeway to move to the AP school from the middle rung, provided you have the initiative.
There's more merit in the way our cousins across the pond function.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-01 08:57:59
Supply and demand theory is based on several assumptions being met, one specifically about perfect information. A person has to know that one place pays better than another. That information is generally available, as long as the person is looking for it.
That is the problem though, people expect everything to be handed down to them on a silver platter, but in reality they actually need to look for that information to make the choice best for them...
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-01 09:56:23
Apparently Kara thinks that doing the absolute minimum in life should land oneself right into the center of the middle class.
That serves as a heightened example to how entitled some people feel their existence to be.
First: I never said that.
Second: I willingly live in a country with some of the highest tax rates in the world because there is a difference when people are able to make a decent wage and live with very, very little poverty. Denmark has no minimum wage but has unions, employee associations, and strict labor laws.
Third: you need to read up on middle class income brackets and average cost of living. They are two different things. Minimum wage does not cover the average cost of living in CA and even with this increase it will not cover that.
Fourth: I stated that I do not like minimum wage laws. I also do not like companies choosing their own wage policies for low level positions because, historically, both of these policies end badly in the US.
Five: minimum wage is a band-aid and only treats a symptom of several major problems.
Edited~
#1) OK ok, you didn't specifically say that but you did propose the idea that those who work for minimum wage have difficulty "surviving" and they shouldn't have that difficulty. In my defense I did use the word "apparently".
That is a lot of people. Millions of people have to survive on minimum wage in the US. Almost everyone working in a mall is making minimum wage. If they aren't supposed to be able to support themselves on this, exactly how are they supposed to do this?
#2) That's Demark no? A member state of NATO? Please realize that what ever extra resources your government has available to smooth out poverty by "subsidizing" it out of existence come from the added security provided to you by the USA through our NATO commitments.
#3) Minimum wage is not suppose to cover a middle class lifestyle. Doing the absolute minimum in life is suppose to net a poor quality lifestyle.
#4) You don't like minimum wage laws but you live in a country that subsidizes those in poverty so that they aren't in poverty anymore. One can live a rather comfortable life doing very little in Demark no?
#5) Minimum wage is the problem, free markets are the solution. Let the market set the rate, the rate will lower but more people will be working.
#6) The economic and political agenda of the current administration is the root cause for the lack of economic opportunity in this country. It's the reason you have to take 2 part time jobs to simply get 40+ hours. It's the reason you have to work for minimum wage.
It absolutely slays me to see everyone here bitching about lack of opportunity in the workplace and continue to place blame on the players of the game (businesses) and not on the ones that set the rules (the current administration).
By Zerowone 2013-10-01 10:33:37
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist. I believe he is referring to what you said about Harding, Coolidge, and (for the most part) Hoover.
Roosevelt's only saving grace was WWII. That was what brought us out of the depression. Do not forget about that.
New Deal II Do not forget about that. But lets see the both of you explain away the results of this "Rassmusen Poll" with respect to your opposing point of view of my historically accurate statement. Lets not forget Rasmussen is conservatively biased.
Quote: Rasmussen poll:
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 81%Favorability 12%Unfavorability
Herbert Hoover 48%Favorability 34%Unfavorability
Calvin Coolidge 38%Favorability 31%Unfavorability
Warren G. Harding 29%Favorability 33%Unfavorability
Now why would they have such poor favorability?? That's what you need to prove is wrong and not just claim is false. Remember those 3 preceded Roosevelt in succession. Please do give me a revisionist history lesson. I'm all ears.
because the average American knows jack squat about those Presidencies let alone current events? And no, when you make an outrageous bs claim it is on you to back it up.
Here is a history lesson:
Harding was one the most corrupt and inept presidents, ever heard of the Teapot Dome scandal?
Coolidige you would have loved for his modern day neo conservative tendencies of less regulation, less taxes, less government spending. Amazing how the stock market crash of 1929 happened 7 months after he left office. Might have something to do with zero regulations on wall street. Amazing how nearly 100yrs later people are having the same conversation but with different names.
Hoover was inept to enact the change he sought by implementing government work programs because he was a Republican and didnt want to be viewed as being "Socialist" or even "Facsist" which was sweeping Europe at the time. Like Obama he had the unfortunate tenure of inheriting someone elses mess and taking the brunt of the blame.
Now Franklin Delano Roosevelt bucked the system by implementing government works programs, ever heard of the Tennesse Valley Authority Act? Ever heard of the Works Progress Administration aka the WPA? He was labeled a "Socialist" by many of his oppenents but he was elected 4 times in a row and is viewed as the one of the top 3 presidents by Liberals and Conservatives across the nation, because of the success of his programs resulting in a strong domestic economy and the emergence of the US as a global superpower per the success of WWII. Dwight Eisenhower considered as the greatest Republican president of the last century carried that torch by inacting government work programs to build the modern highway infrastructure and carried it out with a 90% income tax rate. This period is wax poeticized as the greatest period of American prosperity the 1940's-1950's.
You were asked to explain why think it is false that Roosevelt cleaned up the mess of Harding, Coolidge, and Hover. To which you admitted you know jack squat. Good Day sir.
Ps. the use of the Ramussen poll was a way of showing that one didn't know what they were talking about in claiming the assertion was false; while utilizing one of their favorite go to citation sources. The results of polls on the popularity of historical figures are based on their legacy which someone conceded to know jack squat about.... To which they will respond that they themselves didn't admit that they didn't know jack about, but that the average American does not. Which is a shameful testament of any American to concede. However, that was the out they took opposed to backing up their claim. Proved my point, derailment over. Peace.
[+]
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-10-01 10:35:54
Single person, no dependents
Minimum wage is $8 an hour
$320 a week
$16,640 a year (before taxes)
-social security/medicade/medicare (7.65%)
-federal (15%)
-state (2% + $71.24)
Total take home: $12,467
At $10 an hour
$400 a week
$20,800 a year (before taxes)
-social security/medicade/medicare (7.65%)
-federal (15%)
-state (4% + $266.56)
Total take home: $14,900
Average cost of living in CA? I've read from $11+ per hour.
Maybe you can provide some numbers for the average cost of living in CA, broken down by city or county.
Rent in a bad part of Los Angeles County for a studio is $400 to 600. I'm also not including any state, county, or municipal programs.if I include current programs, even those before Obamacare, insurance and and food are virtually free to "poverty" bracket class.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-01 10:46:17
#1) OK ok, you didn't specifically say that but you did propose the idea that those who work for minimum wage have difficulty "surviving" and they shouldn't have that difficulty. In my defense I did use the word "apparently".
That is a lot of people. Millions of people have to survive on minimum wage in the US. Almost everyone working in a mall is making minimum wage. If they aren't supposed to be able to support themselves on this, exactly how are they supposed to do this?
I didn't say anything about difficulty. I asked how Bacon proposed those people to survive if by working full-time they are not able to support themselves.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Bacon, how exactly would you propose they are supposed to support themselves if minimum wage, full time is not supposed to? This is not jumping to middle class, as you seem to assume, but a survivable wage.
You could work 2 jobs, but then you never have time to "better" yourself. You could receive help from the government with food stamps, rent, etc, but then you are horrible, horrible scum who is on the government ***.
So what exactly is your proposal for millions of people to support themselves and not be a drain on society?
Quote: #2) That's Demark no? A member state of NATO? Please realize that what ever extra resources your government has available to smooth out poverty by "subsidizing" it out of existence come from the added security provided to you by the USA through our NATO commitments. Right, I'm glad you understand how Denmark supports and commits to NATO. I'm glad you understand the economics and politics in Denmark.
Oh wait, you are talking out of your ***.
It seems you do understand that the US subsidizes the defense industry....oh wait that's not what you meant, I'm sure.
Quote: #3) Minimum wage is not suppose to cover a middle class lifestyle. Doing the absolute minimum in life is suppose to net a poor quality lifestyle. The only people talking about middle class is you and others who seem not to grasp the difference between livable wage vs. Middle class.
Quote: #4) You don't like minimum wage laws but you live in a country that subsidizes those in poverty so that they aren't in poverty anymore. One can live a rather comfortable life doing very little in Demark no? And you live in a country that subsidizes companies who can't compete and even those that can.
Why not go look up some stuff about Denmark before talking out of your ***? People have to pay taxes in DK, even those who receive subsidies. Doing nothing and getting paid? Not likely.
There is no government unemployment insurance, only private. You only get so much government help after you have exhausted all of your assets.
Since the 90's there are very few people who need subsidizes (there was a large re-training campaign). Most of them are the elderly and students. Students receive free university education and a 5 years stipend. This means the Danish workforce can compete throughout the world.
But hey why look up stuff when you can make broad assumptions.
Quote: #5) Minimum wage is the problem, free markets are the solution. Let the market set the rate, the rate will lower but more people will be working. The US is a consumption based economy and has been since the 1950's. This means that if people can't buy stuff companies go out of business.
It's one of the reasons that China's GDP has not grown at the expected rate since the global recession started. They rely on the Western world to buy their goods and if the Western world can't they don't grow as quickly.
The free market is not a solution nor has it ever been "the" solution. A semi-free market is great but an absolute free market is absolute crap.
If you hate subsidizes so much why aren't you upset with the defense industry, the RIAA, the farming industry, the car industry, the oil industry, etc?
Quote: #6) The economic and political agenda of the current administration is the root cause for the lack of economic opportunity in this country. It's the reason you have to take 2 part time jobs to simply get 40+ hours. It's the reason you have to work for minimum wage. Right, this is ***. There is not one root cause for the economic issues in the US and both political sides are to blame.
The US has absolutly no long term vision. The markets only care about the next quarterly report and the politicians only care about the next election. Stable mature economies (the US is a mature economy) are not short term but that is all anybody cares about in the US.
Quote: It absolutely slays me to see everyone here bitching about lack of opportunity in the workplace and continue to place blame on the players of the game (businesses) and not on the ones that set the rules (the current administration).
This is babble. Both this administration and the previous ones (going back decades) listen to businesses far more than they listen to their constituants. This obamacare you hate, insurance companies love.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-01 10:47:05
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist. I believe he is referring to what you said about Harding, Coolidge, and (for the most part) Hoover.
Roosevelt's only saving grace was WWII. That was what brought us out of the depression. Do not forget about that.
New Deal II Do not forget about that. But lets see the both of you explain away the results of this "Rassmusen Poll" with respect to your opposing point of view of my historically accurate statement. Lets not forget Rasmussen is conservatively biased.
Quote: Rasmussen poll:
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 81%Favorability 12%Unfavorability
Herbert Hoover 48%Favorability 34%Unfavorability
Calvin Coolidge 38%Favorability 31%Unfavorability
Warren G. Harding 29%Favorability 33%Unfavorability
Now why would they have such poor favorability?? That's what you need to prove is wrong and not just claim is false. Remember those 3 preceded Roosevelt in succession. Please do give me a revisionist history lesson. I'm all ears.
because the average American knows jack squat about those Presidencies let alone current events? And no, when you make an outrageous bs claim it is on you to back it up.
Here is a history lesson:
Harding was one the most corrupt and inept presidents, ever heard of the Teapot Dome scandal?
Coolidige you would have loved for his modern day neo conservative tendencies of less regulation, less taxes, less government spending. Amazing how the stock market crash of 1929 happened 7 months after he left office. Might have something to do with zero regulations on wall street. Amazing how nearly 100yrs later people are having the same conversation but with different names.
Hoover was inept to enact the change he sought by implementing government work programs because he was a Republican and didnt want to be viewed as being "Socialist" or even "Facsist" which was sweeping Europe at the time. Like Obama he had the unfortunate tenure of inheriting someone elses mess and taking the brunt of the blame.
Now Franklin Delano Roosevelt bucked the system by implementing government works programs, ever heard of the Tennesse Valley Authority Act? Ever heard of the Works Progress Administration aka the WPA? He was labeled a "Socialist" by many of his oppenents but he was elected 4 times in a row and is viewed as the one of the top 3 presidents by Liberals and Conservatives across the nation, because of the success of his programs resulting in a strong domestic economy and the emergence of the US as a global superpower per the success of WWII. Dwight Eisenhower considered as the greatest Republican president of the last century carried that torch by inacting government work programs to build the modern highway infrastructure and carried it out with a 90% income tax rate. This period is wax poeticized as the greatest period of American prosperity the 1940's-1950's.
You were asked to explain why think it is false that Roosevelt cleaned up the mess of Harding, Coolidge, and Hover. To which you admitted you know jack squat. Good Day sir.
Ps. the use of the Ramussen poll was a way of showing that one didn't know what they were talking about in claiming the assertion was false; while utilizing one of their favorite go to citation sources. The results of polls on the popularity of historical figures are based on their legacy which someone conceded to know jack squat about.... To which they will respond that they themselves didn't admit that they didn't know jack about, but that the average American does not. Which is a shameful testament of any American to concede. However, that was the out they took opposed to backing up their claim. Proved my point, derailment over. Peace. Your viewpoint of American History is skewed in your absolute bias against anyone who has a (R) next to their name.
You also mentioned that FDR's success came from the work programs and other temporary fixes to the economy he made during his administration. You failed to realize and mention that real growth didn't start until 1939, over a year after WWII has started.
But that little fact would have been counteractive to your argument. So you probably ignored it to glorify temporary fixes as the reason why we had growth in the 1940s...
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-01 11:07:58
yawn.....
1st) "Surviving" implies difficulty to imply that you survived something implies it was difficult.
2nd) Don't get personal (yawn), NATO provides for you defense. NATO is 95% USA, we did after all spend nearly 666 billion on it in 2011, how much did denmark spend? 4.33 billion in 2009 (not even 1%). So just stop, you are defended by NATO, the US IS NATO.
3rd) One is not guaranteed a "living wage" via minimum wage work now should they be. Society does not owe you anything merely for your existence. Go out and work for what you want.
4th) I didn't say anything about other government subsidies. I'd rather the feds GTFO of everywhere and let free markets run everything. However subsidizing corporations at least yields something tangible and useful (more products). Subsidizing poverty and welfare scammers seeming yields more poverty.
5th) The solution to poverty is economic growth. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
6th) Place blame where it belongs right at Obama's feet.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2013-10-01 11:08:44
It's garbage because you made up a bunch of ***I didn't say or even remotely imply. Seriously, stop doing that. You've quickly become the most aggravating person here to debate with and that's saying something because we actually have a paranoid delusional who pops in here periodically.
But you did imply. Maybe you should read your own writing.
Quote: There was nothing of substance in the book review nor any reference to a journal article. I will read the proper citation, thank you very much.
You didn't even read the article at all. I'm starting to wonder if you even can read or not.
Quote: It screams insecurity because you can't seem to make a point without pretending it's beyond our comprehension. Yes, we're not all accountants (thankfully!), but most of us here are capable of following a logical argument.
Well, until you can prove that you can understand a simple article like the one I referenced, then I will continue to point out that your reading comprehension is that of an 8th grader. Tiresome.
Whatever, thanks for the article. (The actual one not the book review, lol)
[+]
Caitsith.Zahrah
Server: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2013-10-01 11:22:36
#2) That's Demark no? A member state of NATO? Please realize that what ever extra resources your government has available to smooth out poverty by "subsidizing" it out of existence come from the added security provided to you by the USA through our NATO commitments.
Link, please, and thank you in advance.
Here's the deal...You remember that teeny-tiny, little dust-up that led to the conception of NATO, right?
You also seem to imply that the US somehow can tout superiority as if there is no symbiotic relationship among NATO. Now, those countries who are so lovingly supplied "added security" by the great martyr, the US, are in absolutely no way geographically advantageous jump off points for the US military? Not in its conception and not now. No. Never.
I was going to make a comparison about individual contributions and use this to cite hand-in-hand
efforts but would you look at that!
Quote: Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date. Some submissions may not be processed, and we may not be able to respond to your inquiries.
Information about government operating status and resumption of normal operations is available at USA.GOV.
I still don't understand what you expect from a country with a population just a little above 1/5 of the US's?
Why was NATO, of all things, brought up? To incite an American pissing contest where the US is the only contestant? Sounds typical. Please don't travel.
EDIT: We have to give KN some credit. He does cite his sources once in a while, unlike his kin who frequently ride into threads brandishing their six-shooter and lynchin' rope rather than giving us an indication of how they come to their individual conclusions.
If I remember correctly, Nausi infamously cited a super-market rag once, and immediately had his caboose handed to him. :/
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-01 11:29:54
Tiresome.
Whatever, thanks for the article. (The actual one not the book review, lol) I hope you read that article, and possibly learn something from it.
There may be hope for you yet!
[+]
 Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2013-10-01 12:06:17
The solution to poverty is economic growth
I don't think there is a solution to poverty....
we aren't born equal, nor do we grow to be so.
I really think there is a problem in this country, in that, we are all seemingly confusing equal opportunity with absolute equality. we shouldn't strive for absolute equality, because it isn't possible. it's not in our nature.
equal opportunity, however, is something we should strive for, we really just need to quit meshing the two into one, wrong, & *** up philosophy.
right?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-01 12:25:08
The solution to poverty is economic growth
I don't think there is a solution to poverty....
we aren't born equal, nor do we grow to be so.
I really think there is a problem in this country, in that, we are all seemingly confusing equal opportunity with absolute equality. we shouldn't strive for absolute equality, because it isn't possible. it's not in our nature.
equal opportunity, however, is something we should strive for, we really just need to quit meshing the two into one, wrong, & *** up philosophy.
right? There may not be a silver bullet for poverty, but at least we can shrink it to be near zero.
Yes, there will be people out there looking for a handout, but we can prevent them from looking for a handout involuntary.
But I agree with you 100%. We are not equal. We should all strive to be better, but certain people will be better than others (that is the whole point in being better).
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-01 12:35:10
Why was NATO, of all things, brought up? To incite an American pissing contest where the US is the only contestant? Sounds typical. Please don't travel.
If you'll look back in the threat, Kara brought up Denmark and it's poverty statistics as a rational for higher taxes, unions, and strict labor laws. I responded by saying it's easy to subsidize poverty out of existence when your nation's defense is provided for by the USA.
By Zerowone 2013-10-01 12:35:42
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist. I believe he is referring to what you said about Harding, Coolidge, and (for the most part) Hoover.
Roosevelt's only saving grace was WWII. That was what brought us out of the depression. Do not forget about that.
New Deal II Do not forget about that. But lets see the both of you explain away the results of this "Rassmusen Poll" with respect to your opposing point of view of my historically accurate statement. Lets not forget Rasmussen is conservatively biased.
Quote: Rasmussen poll:
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 81%Favorability 12%Unfavorability
Herbert Hoover 48%Favorability 34%Unfavorability
Calvin Coolidge 38%Favorability 31%Unfavorability
Warren G. Harding 29%Favorability 33%Unfavorability
Now why would they have such poor favorability?? That's what you need to prove is wrong and not just claim is false. Remember those 3 preceded Roosevelt in succession. Please do give me a revisionist history lesson. I'm all ears.
because the average American knows jack squat about those Presidencies let alone current events? And no, when you make an outrageous bs claim it is on you to back it up.
Here is a history lesson:
Harding was one the most corrupt and inept presidents, ever heard of the Teapot Dome scandal?
Coolidige you would have loved for his modern day neo conservative tendencies of less regulation, less taxes, less government spending. Amazing how the stock market crash of 1929 happened 7 months after he left office. Might have something to do with zero regulations on wall street. Amazing how nearly 100yrs later people are having the same conversation but with different names.
Hoover was inept to enact the change he sought by implementing government work programs because he was a Republican and didnt want to be viewed as being "Socialist" or even "Facsist" which was sweeping Europe at the time. Like Obama he had the unfortunate tenure of inheriting someone elses mess and taking the brunt of the blame.
Now Franklin Delano Roosevelt bucked the system by implementing government works programs, ever heard of the Tennesse Valley Authority Act? Ever heard of the Works Progress Administration aka the WPA? He was labeled a "Socialist" by many of his oppenents but he was elected 4 times in a row and is viewed as the one of the top 3 presidents by Liberals and Conservatives across the nation, because of the success of his programs resulting in a strong domestic economy and the emergence of the US as a global superpower per the success of WWII. Dwight Eisenhower considered as the greatest Republican president of the last century carried that torch by inacting government work programs to build the modern highway infrastructure and carried it out with a 90% income tax rate. This period is wax poeticized as the greatest period of American prosperity the 1940's-1950's.
You were asked to explain why think it is false that Roosevelt cleaned up the mess of Harding, Coolidge, and Hover. To which you admitted you know jack squat. Good Day sir.
Ps. the use of the Ramussen poll was a way of showing that one didn't know what they were talking about in claiming the assertion was false; while utilizing one of their favorite go to citation sources. The results of polls on the popularity of historical figures are based on their legacy which someone conceded to know jack squat about.... To which they will respond that they themselves didn't admit that they didn't know jack about, but that the average American does not. Which is a shameful testament of any American to concede. However, that was the out they took opposed to backing up their claim. Proved my point, derailment over. Peace. Your viewpoint of American History is skewed in your absolute bias against anyone who has a (R) next to their name.
You also mentioned that FDR's success came from the work programs and other temporary fixes to the economy he made during his administration. You failed to realize and mention that real growth didn't start until 1939, over a year after WWII has started.
But that little fact would have been counteractive to your argument. So you probably ignored it to glorify temporary fixes as the reason why we had growth in the 1940s...
so you are saying America entered the war in 1939 or even 1940? Cause most people recall the day that will live in infamy happened in December of 1941. Which would edge your claim to be 1942 not 1939. Can you count? Can you put 1 and 2 together?
good day revisionist.. good day.
[+]
Caitsith.Zahrah
Server: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2013-10-01 12:37:05
Why was NATO, of all things, brought up? To incite an American pissing contest where the US is the only contestant? Sounds typical. Please don't travel.
If you'll look back in the threat, Kara brought up Denmark and it's poverty statistics as a rational for higher taxes, unions, and strict labor laws. I responded by saying it's easy to subsidize poverty out of existence when your nation's defense is provided for by the USA.
So, what you're saying is you didn't read the rest?
I feel that I will have to adopt sarcasm tags now. :/
You also haven't provided a link directly showing the correlation between both nation's NATO involvement and the poverty rate in Denmark. Show us how this money is being allocated, and take into consideration, the population, GDP, employment, taxes, and level of education in both countries respectively, please.
Or give us the entire run-down of all the Nordic nations, if you feel inclined.
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2013-10-01 12:45:33
so you are saying America entered the war in 1939 or even 1940? Cause most people recall the day that will live in infamy happened in December of 1941. Which would edge your claim to be 1942 not 1939. Can you count? Can you put 1 and 2 together?
good day revisionist.. good day.
America didn't officially enter the war until 1941 sure but we were heavily involved in keeping Britain alive in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. France didn't waste any time surrendering and if Britain fell it would have been a completely different war. Despite wanting to stay out of the fight FDR recognized early that Germany was the real deal. Fortunately Hitler was an incompetent military leader and the British (with enormous supply help from the US) were able to fend the Luftwaffe off. We were also ferrying supplies to the Russians in 1940-41. So yeah the economy started to get going again in 1940 and obviously really took off in 1942. But your point remains correct, FDR saved the US, then he saved the world.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-01 12:52:31
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist. I believe he is referring to what you said about Harding, Coolidge, and (for the most part) Hoover.
Roosevelt's only saving grace was WWII. That was what brought us out of the depression. Do not forget about that.
New Deal II Do not forget about that. But lets see the both of you explain away the results of this "Rassmusen Poll" with respect to your opposing point of view of my historically accurate statement. Lets not forget Rasmussen is conservatively biased.
Quote: Rasmussen poll:
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 81%Favorability 12%Unfavorability
Herbert Hoover 48%Favorability 34%Unfavorability
Calvin Coolidge 38%Favorability 31%Unfavorability
Warren G. Harding 29%Favorability 33%Unfavorability
Now why would they have such poor favorability?? That's what you need to prove is wrong and not just claim is false. Remember those 3 preceded Roosevelt in succession. Please do give me a revisionist history lesson. I'm all ears.
because the average American knows jack squat about those Presidencies let alone current events? And no, when you make an outrageous bs claim it is on you to back it up.
Here is a history lesson:
Harding was one the most corrupt and inept presidents, ever heard of the Teapot Dome scandal?
Coolidige you would have loved for his modern day neo conservative tendencies of less regulation, less taxes, less government spending. Amazing how the stock market crash of 1929 happened 7 months after he left office. Might have something to do with zero regulations on wall street. Amazing how nearly 100yrs later people are having the same conversation but with different names.
Hoover was inept to enact the change he sought by implementing government work programs because he was a Republican and didnt want to be viewed as being "Socialist" or even "Facsist" which was sweeping Europe at the time. Like Obama he had the unfortunate tenure of inheriting someone elses mess and taking the brunt of the blame.
Now Franklin Delano Roosevelt bucked the system by implementing government works programs, ever heard of the Tennesse Valley Authority Act? Ever heard of the Works Progress Administration aka the WPA? He was labeled a "Socialist" by many of his oppenents but he was elected 4 times in a row and is viewed as the one of the top 3 presidents by Liberals and Conservatives across the nation, because of the success of his programs resulting in a strong domestic economy and the emergence of the US as a global superpower per the success of WWII. Dwight Eisenhower considered as the greatest Republican president of the last century carried that torch by inacting government work programs to build the modern highway infrastructure and carried it out with a 90% income tax rate. This period is wax poeticized as the greatest period of American prosperity the 1940's-1950's.
You were asked to explain why think it is false that Roosevelt cleaned up the mess of Harding, Coolidge, and Hover. To which you admitted you know jack squat. Good Day sir.
Ps. the use of the Ramussen poll was a way of showing that one didn't know what they were talking about in claiming the assertion was false; while utilizing one of their favorite go to citation sources. The results of polls on the popularity of historical figures are based on their legacy which someone conceded to know jack squat about.... To which they will respond that they themselves didn't admit that they didn't know jack about, but that the average American does not. Which is a shameful testament of any American to concede. However, that was the out they took opposed to backing up their claim. Proved my point, derailment over. Peace. Your viewpoint of American History is skewed in your absolute bias against anyone who has a (R) next to their name.
You also mentioned that FDR's success came from the work programs and other temporary fixes to the economy he made during his administration. You failed to realize and mention that real growth didn't start until 1939, over a year after WWII has started.
But that little fact would have been counteractive to your argument. So you probably ignored it to glorify temporary fixes as the reason why we had growth in the 1940s...
so you are saying America entered the war in 1939 or even 1940? Cause most people recall the day that will live in infamy happened in December of 1941. Which would edge your claim to be 1942 not 1939. Can you count? Can you put 1 and 2 together?
good day revisionist.. good day. I guess America wasn't supplying weapons to the Allies (especially Britain) prior to Pearl Harbor.
And you are accusing me of being a revisionist...
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-01 12:56:23
Why was NATO, of all things, brought up? To incite an American pissing contest where the US is the only contestant? Sounds typical. Please don't travel.
If you'll look back in the threat, Kara brought up Denmark and it's poverty statistics as a rational for higher taxes, unions, and strict labor laws. I responded by saying it's easy to subsidize poverty out of existence when your nation's defense is provided for by the USA.
So, what you're saying is you didn't read the rest?
I feel that I will have to adopt sarcasm tags now. :/
You also haven't provided a link directly showing the correlation between both nation's NATO involvement and the poverty rate in Denmark. Show us how this money is being allocated, and take into consideration, the population, GDP, employment, taxes, and level of education in both countries respectively, please.
Or give us the entire run-down of all the Nordic nations, if you feel inclined. Groan.... you're sticking your fingers in your ears. I'm simply saying that because Denmark doesn't spend tons of money on its military, it can do other things with it such as "subsidize" it's people out of poverty.
Denmark has a broad-reaching welfare system, which ensures that all Danes receive tax-funded health care and unemployment insurance. Denmark ranked the first in the European pensions barometer survey for the past two years.[21] The lowest-income group before retirement from the age of 65 receive 120% of their pre-retirement income in pension and miscellaneous subsidies.
....and that's just the first paragraph from wikipedia......
Caitsith.Zahrah
Server: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2013-10-01 13:06:05
Why was NATO, of all things, brought up? To incite an American pissing contest where the US is the only contestant? Sounds typical. Please don't travel.
If you'll look back in the threat, Kara brought up Denmark and it's poverty statistics as a rational for higher taxes, unions, and strict labor laws. I responded by saying it's easy to subsidize poverty out of existence when your nation's defense is provided for by the USA.
So, what you're saying is you didn't read the rest?
I feel that I will have to adopt sarcasm tags now. :/
You also haven't provided a link directly showing the correlation between both nation's NATO involvement and the poverty rate in Denmark. Show us how this money is being allocated, and take into consideration, the population, GDP, employment, taxes, and level of education in both countries respectively, please.
Or give us the entire run-down of all the Nordic nations, if you feel inclined. Groan.... you're sticking your fingers in your ears. I'm simply saying that because Denmark doesn't spend tons of money on its military, it can do other things with it such as "subsidize" it's people out of poverty.
Denmark has a broad-reaching welfare system, which ensures that all Danes receive tax-funded health care and unemployment insurance. Denmark ranked the first in the European pensions barometer survey for the past two years.[21] The lowest-income group before retirement from the age of 65 receive 120% of their pre-retirement income in pension and miscellaneous subsidies.
....and that's just the first paragraph from wikipedia......
It seems I can say you're doing the same. If you had read what I said, and know your history, then you would have come to the conclusion that maybe military installations in Europe and NATO may as well be an archaic, Cold War Era, superfluous American investment that they, themselves, are willingly hemorrhaging.
And please don't assert the American "superhero" mentality when NATO is a cut and dry example of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". It's strategically advantageous, unless you would like to take a shot in Northern Africa. GLHF.
Wiki? Broad strokes? And high taxes doesn't compensate for free health benefits, a better education system, or anything else? That's all the US's contribution? Mmmkay.
EDIT: I'm starting to think his source is a blog or ultra-conservative rag.
[+]
By Zerowone 2013-10-01 13:20:05
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Phoenix.Amandarius said: »Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
false
Prove it historical revisionist. I believe he is referring to what you said about Harding, Coolidge, and (for the most part) Hoover.
Roosevelt's only saving grace was WWII. That was what brought us out of the depression. Do not forget about that.
New Deal II Do not forget about that. But lets see the both of you explain away the results of this "Rassmusen Poll" with respect to your opposing point of view of my historically accurate statement. Lets not forget Rasmussen is conservatively biased.
Quote: Rasmussen poll:
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 81%Favorability 12%Unfavorability
Herbert Hoover 48%Favorability 34%Unfavorability
Calvin Coolidge 38%Favorability 31%Unfavorability
Warren G. Harding 29%Favorability 33%Unfavorability
Now why would they have such poor favorability?? That's what you need to prove is wrong and not just claim is false. Remember those 3 preceded Roosevelt in succession. Please do give me a revisionist history lesson. I'm all ears.
because the average American knows jack squat about those Presidencies let alone current events? And no, when you make an outrageous bs claim it is on you to back it up.
Here is a history lesson:
Harding was one the most corrupt and inept presidents, ever heard of the Teapot Dome scandal?
Coolidige you would have loved for his modern day neo conservative tendencies of less regulation, less taxes, less government spending. Amazing how the stock market crash of 1929 happened 7 months after he left office. Might have something to do with zero regulations on wall street. Amazing how nearly 100yrs later people are having the same conversation but with different names.
Hoover was inept to enact the change he sought by implementing government work programs because he was a Republican and didnt want to be viewed as being "Socialist" or even "Facsist" which was sweeping Europe at the time. Like Obama he had the unfortunate tenure of inheriting someone elses mess and taking the brunt of the blame.
Now Franklin Delano Roosevelt bucked the system by implementing government works programs, ever heard of the Tennesse Valley Authority Act? Ever heard of the Works Progress Administration aka the WPA? He was labeled a "Socialist" by many of his oppenents but he was elected 4 times in a row and is viewed as the one of the top 3 presidents by Liberals and Conservatives across the nation, because of the success of his programs resulting in a strong domestic economy and the emergence of the US as a global superpower per the success of WWII. Dwight Eisenhower considered as the greatest Republican president of the last century carried that torch by inacting government work programs to build the modern highway infrastructure and carried it out with a 90% income tax rate. This period is wax poeticized as the greatest period of American prosperity the 1940's-1950's.
You were asked to explain why think it is false that Roosevelt cleaned up the mess of Harding, Coolidge, and Hover. To which you admitted you know jack squat. Good Day sir.
Ps. the use of the Ramussen poll was a way of showing that one didn't know what they were talking about in claiming the assertion was false; while utilizing one of their favorite go to citation sources. The results of polls on the popularity of historical figures are based on their legacy which someone conceded to know jack squat about.... To which they will respond that they themselves didn't admit that they didn't know jack about, but that the average American does not. Which is a shameful testament of any American to concede. However, that was the out they took opposed to backing up their claim. Proved my point, derailment over. Peace. Your viewpoint of American History is skewed in your absolute bias against anyone who has a (R) next to their name.
You also mentioned that FDR's success came from the work programs and other temporary fixes to the economy he made during his administration. You failed to realize and mention that real growth didn't start until 1939, over a year after WWII has started.
But that little fact would have been counteractive to your argument. So you probably ignored it to glorify temporary fixes as the reason why we had growth in the 1940s...
so you are saying America entered the war in 1939 or even 1940? Cause most people recall the day that will live in infamy happened in December of 1941. Which would edge your claim to be 1942 not 1939. Can you count? Can you put 1 and 2 together?
good day revisionist.. good day. I guess America wasn't supplying weapons to the Allies (especially Britain) prior to Pearl Harbor.
And you are accusing me of being a revisionist...
Was that the totality of the American economy? Was every ship successful in crossing the Atlantic? No we lost hundreds of millions in arms, goods and capital. Seriously... just give up. This is my last good day to you but I am sure you will reply because your ego can not resist to have the last word even when you are completely off based and wrong.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-01 13:27:36
Yes, well wiki is wrong. Unemployment insurance is not sponsored by the state. Each person has to pay for their own. (reference 21, the webpage does not exist)
https://www.workindenmark.dk/en/Find_information/Information_for_job_seekers/Working_in_Denmark/Unemployment_insurance
The second sentence is not referenced and I have no idea where they got that from.
As to your other post you dragged NATO into something that is silly. NATO is not the only military organization Denmark belongs (UN, EU) to and they are staunch allies of the US. Constantly backing US intervention and providing resources (not just money). Which is why I said you are talking out of your ***. You picked a statistic out of thin air and tied that with poverty levels.
I'm not saying people are guaranteed a living wage, I'm asking for you to come up with a solution for people who work full time and cannot live on those minimum wages alone. So far you offered no solution to that.
The federal government is not the only one that subsidizes companies. Many states offer subsidizes (or incentives) for moving to their state....thus subsidizing those companies. They also reduce or eliminate state taxes for those companies.
Of course economic growth helps with poverty, depending on where that growth is. That is like saying rain will help a drought. It doesn't offer anything.
[+]
Quote: California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Wednesday signed a bill approving a $2 minimum wage increase to be rolled out over the next three years. Unless another state passes a larger increase, the bump will make California's minimum wage the highest in the country.
The governor joined legislators, business owners and workers at a signing ceremony in Los Angeles on Wednesday morning, with plans to fly to another ceremony in Oakland that afternoon.
“For millions of California’s hardworking minimum wage employees, a few extra dollars a week can make a huge difference to help them provide for their families,” said state Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg in a release. "They deserve a modest boost and after six years, an increase in California’s minimum wage is the right thing to do.”
The minimum wage will go up in two separate $1 increments. The first will bump the rate from $8 to $9 in July 2014, and the second increase, to $10, will come in January 2016. According to the Economic Policy Institute, about 3 million Californians are currently working for minimum wage.
Many low-wage workers across the state hailed the news.
Anthony Goytia, who works the overnight shift at a Walmart store in Duarte, currently lives in a garage with his wife and two children, while a third is on the way.
“If I had a higher wage, we would be able to rent an apartment,” he told The Huffington Post. “[Right now] we’re living in poverty. I have to live check to check.”
He detailed the struggles of living off a low wage, especially with a family. “I want to be able to buy my kids shoes if they need them and not wait for our income tax [return] to do it,” he said. “I want to give my wife money for maternity pants and underwear. She needs bras. It’s just ridiculous.”
Goytia said his family cannot afford Walmart’s health insurance plan and must depend on Medi-Cal, the state's Medicare program, instead. They also frequently receive food stamps.
“I really don’t want to depend on food stamps,” he told HuffPost. “I’m a hardworking person; I want to be a proud, working American that’s not on public assistance."
Maria Cristobal works seasonally in a packinghouse or in the lettuce and chile fields near where she lives with her two children in Fresno.
“Two more dollars would impact me a lot,” she told HuffPost. “I would definitely like to have more money for the house, for food, for rent, utilities.”
But she worries that a minimum wage hike might equal a price hike as well.
“When they raise wages, they raise prices of things," she said. "I think companies will cut back on hiring people, and it’s hard to find work sometimes.”
Brown, however, argued the reverse, saying wages in California have stagnated while consumer prices have continued to rise.
“The minimum wage has not kept pace with rising costs,” the governor said in a release. “This legislation is overdue and will help families that are struggling in this harsh economy.”
But by the time the $10 minimum takes effect, it will probably still be outpaced by inflation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $10 per hour in 2016 is equivalent to roughly $9.36 in today's dollars.
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) also disputed the idea that the minimum wage increase would put a drag on the economy.
“A $10 hour minimum wage boosts earnings by $4,000 a year and will put $2.6 billion dollars back into the hands of workers,” he said. “This is money that will be spent at grocery stores, on school supplies and invested in education, and that ultimately strengthens the recovery and ensures California’s job market continues growing faster than the rest of the nation.”
I know many democrats will disagree with me, but this is supporting "unskilled labor" at best. I understand the concept of helping bring a large chunk of working-class Americans out of the poverty bracket but this doesn't really remedy the problem. It's just a temporary fix for a particular demographic, that ultimately will have severe ramifications on the state economy.
The democrats in CA might have civil rights down, but their views on how to fix the economy is bullsh#t. Earlier this year they decided to invest more money into CA prisons rather than K-12 education...
|
|
