Uncle Milty wrote:

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Hate to pay my employees wages they can actually come close to living off of.

Most of my staff is between 16-22 years old. They are in school, working 15-20 hours a week. They aren’t living off of this check, it’s their first job or something to help save towards a car or whatever. I do not think they should be earning 15.00 an hour. I’d be fine with an age restriction but Bernie said no to that.

I understand and appreciate your position here. Don't know (or forgot) what business you're in. Can't imagine the restaurants I managed in my younger years surviving with that type of increase, incremental or not.

I don't have the answer. We absolutely need to get real about what's considered poverty level in this country then increase the minimum wage and adjust the tax code appropriately. I fear the unintended consequences of a unilateral $15/hr minimum wage, especially the advantage large corporations have in absorbing it. At the same time any alternative I think of leads to different but equal problems.

In the end my greater priority is providing minimum wage protection for adults supporting themselves and their dependents over dependent minors.

Heard this thing on NPR over the weekend which seems relevant here. Story started with the Red Cross charging $0.02 for a donut back during WW2, and the hugely negative reaction that ensued, even though $0.02 for a donut, even then, was a good price. The story started with "categorical change" - suddenly charging for something, even a nominal amount, that used to be free - but broadened into a discussion of changing a "stuck" price after a certain amount of time. I see this even in my own life: when I was a kid, literally in 1990 or thereabouts, Coke and Pepsi introduced the now-familiar cardboard-packaged 12 packs of cans, where before it was all glass bottles, 2 liters, and cans by the six pack packaged in those plastic ring connector things. When they did this, they also introduced a new price, which at the time was a discount over what you would have paid per six pack of cans: you could usually get them somewhere "on sale" for $2.99.

30 years later and I still expect to pay no more than $2.99/12, and you can still get them for that price, and sometimes even less, around holidays and such. It's only in the last few years that it's really become difficult to find them at one store or another that price during non-holidays seasons.

And yet, what else on Earth would I pay $2.99 for TODAY for the same product, literally, that I bought in 1990 at that price?

But once a price is stuck, it's hard to move because "people" - in this case, business owners - find it hard to accept because they think it unreasonable. But $15/hour in 2020 for a human being to do work isn't unreasonable at all.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012 ... -doughnuts

Wolfgang622 wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Hate to pay my employees wages they can actually come close to living off of.

Most of my staff is between 16-22 years old. They are in school, working 15-20 hours a week. They aren’t living off of this check, it’s their first job or something to help save towards a car or whatever. I do not think they should be earning 15.00 an hour. I’d be fine with an age restriction but Bernie said no to that.

I understand and appreciate your position here. Don't know (or forgot) what business you're in. Can't imagine the restaurants I managed in my younger years surviving with that type of increase, incremental or not.

I don't have the answer. We absolutely need to get real about what's considered poverty level in this country then increase the minimum wage and adjust the tax code appropriately. I fear the unintended consequences of a unilateral $15/hr minimum wage, especially the advantage large corporations have in absorbing it. At the same time any alternative I think of leads to different but equal problems.

In the end my greater priority is providing minimum wage protection for adults supporting themselves and their dependents over dependent minors.

Heard this thing on NPR over the weekend which seems relevant here. Story started with the Red Cross charging $0.02 for a donut back during WW2, and the hugely negative reaction that ensued, even though $0.02 for a donut, even then, was a good price. The story started with "categorical change" - suddenly charging for something, even a nominal amount, that used to be free - but broadened into a discussion of changing a "stuck" price after a certain amount of time. I see this even in my own life: when I was a kid, literally in 1990 or thereabouts, Coke and Pepsi introduced the now-familiar cardboard-packaged 12 packs of cans, where before it was all glass bottles, 2 liters, and cans by the six pack packaged in those plastic ring connector things. When they did this, they also introduced a new price, which at the time was a discount over what you would have paid per six pack of cans: you could usually get them somewhere "on sale" for $2.99.

30 years later and I still expect to pay no more than $2.99/12, and you can still get them for that price, and sometimes even less, around holidays and such. It's only in the last few years that it's really become difficult to find them at one store or another that price during non-holidays seasons.

And yet, what else on Earth would I pay $2.99 for TODAY for the same product, literally, that I bought in 1990 at that price?

But once a price is stuck, it's hard to move because "people" - in this case, business owners - find it hard to accept because they think it unreasonable. But $15/hour in 2020 for a human being to do work isn't unreasonable at all.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012 ... -doughnuts

Wanted to say thanks to those of you with a good, reasonable response instead of the pitchfork reaction of others.

My sticking point is how drastic it is. More than double? To use your analogy, what other (non medication products) price doubles instantly? It’s almost always a gradual price increase. Why wouldn’t I expect the same here? I’m fine with it being 10 dollars (40% increase) by 2022 or whatever, then rolling out other moderate increases over time.

all the raise the wage plans i have seen (including PAs) do exactly that.

It's literally in every proposal that it's a gradually implemented increase. The longer we wait, the larger the first jump will have to be. It would seem you were presumptively opposed to a policy you didn't know enough about.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Hate to pay my employees wages they can actually come close to living off of.

Most of my staff is between 16-22 years old. They are in school, working 15-20 hours a week. They aren’t living off of this check, it’s their first job or something to help save towards a car or whatever. I do not think they should be earning 15.00 an hour. I’d be fine with an age restriction but Bernie said no to that.

I understand and appreciate your position here. Don't know (or forgot) what business you're in. Can't imagine the restaurants I managed in my younger years surviving with that type of increase, incremental or not.

I don't have the answer. We absolutely need to get real about what's considered poverty level in this country then increase the minimum wage and adjust the tax code appropriately. I fear the unintended consequences of a unilateral $15/hr minimum wage, especially the advantage large corporations have in absorbing it. At the same time any alternative I think of leads to different but equal problems.

In the end my greater priority is providing minimum wage protection for adults supporting themselves and their dependents over dependent minors.

Heard this thing on NPR over the weekend which seems relevant here. Story started with the Red Cross charging $0.02 for a donut back during WW2, and the hugely negative reaction that ensued, even though $0.02 for a donut, even then, was a good price. The story started with "categorical change" - suddenly charging for something, even a nominal amount, that used to be free - but broadened into a discussion of changing a "stuck" price after a certain amount of time. I see this even in my own life: when I was a kid, literally in 1990 or thereabouts, Coke and Pepsi introduced the now-familiar cardboard-packaged 12 packs of cans, where before it was all glass bottles, 2 liters, and cans by the six pack packaged in those plastic ring connector things. When they did this, they also introduced a new price, which at the time was a discount over what you would have paid per six pack of cans: you could usually get them somewhere "on sale" for $2.99.

30 years later and I still expect to pay no more than $2.99/12, and you can still get them for that price, and sometimes even less, around holidays and such. It's only in the last few years that it's really become difficult to find them at one store or another that price during non-holidays seasons.

And yet, what else on Earth would I pay $2.99 for TODAY for the same product, literally, that I bought in 1990 at that price?

But once a price is stuck, it's hard to move because "people" - in this case, business owners - find it hard to accept because they think it unreasonable. But $15/hour in 2020 for a human being to do work isn't unreasonable at all.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012 ... -doughnuts

apropos of only a little here, but the best you can do for a 12 pack since the trade war has started is like $3.50. The aluminum is apparently more of the cost than the soda. Before that, $2-$2.50 was obtainable.

The party is (belatedly) deciding, but doing so clearly in a way the GOP did not do in 2016 to stop Trump.

Going to be fucking fascinating to see how this plays out.

I hope they win.

jerseyhoya wrote:The party is (belatedly) deciding, but doing so clearly in a way the GOP did not do in 2016 to stop Trump.

Going to be fucking fascinating to see how this plays out.

I hope they win.

Yeah it's fairly clear that this is a direct response to 2016.

Feel bad for the people who voted early. If they didn't vote for Biden or Sanders their vote basically didn't count.

Should be eliminated in primaries.

At least the moderate they've chosen is the least objectionable of the four to me, but I am all in on Bernie until he's cooked.

brantt you gonna vote biden if he is the nominee?

Brantt wrote:Feel bad for the people who voted early. If they didn't vote for Biden or Sanders their vote basically didn't count.

Should be eliminated in primaries.

this staggered primary system needs to be shuttered and the whole thing needs to be rank voted.

so many states with little delegate count have such undue influence over the entire primary race.

The federal minimum wage hasn’t moved since 2009. If it kept pace with worker productivity gains over time, it would be over $19. The purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked in 1968 and has been steadily declining since then. People want to double it now because it’s been kept unreasonably low for a very long time.

My wife is a very profitable small business owner, and the lowest hourly wage she pays is $20/hour for receptionist work. She finds her workers are more committed and productive. Every business is different, and I only bring this up because I’m often told that I have no idea how to run a business, make a payroll, blah blah blah. Other industrialized nations have significantly higher minimum wages (none as high as $15, but these countries also don’t have our asinine health care system).

We have to accept that many aspects of our fabulous lifestyles are built upon exploiting labor, degrading the earth, and discriminating against people different than us. Many of us still live, or expect to live, in this hazy fever dream of post-WWII prosperity that was always built on a faulty foundation. Some people never had access to it, and our political system has worked very adroitly to keep them silenced and marginalized. Others had it, lost it, or fear losing it, and still expect it, and they’ve largely turned to the grievance based Trump faux-populism. Others are still enjoying it and haven’t woken up from the “dream,” and if you’re wringing your hands over having to pay a fair wage or over poor people having access to quality health care, you’re part of this group.

I mean nothing personal by this. Late capitalism is a hell of a drug.

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Klobuchar dropping out and endorsing Biden.

leaves minnesota all to sanders

He'll gain ground there but it's concerning most other places.

Bloomberg might have been such an absolute disaster that he hurt himself enough that with these drop outs, Biden does really well and contested convention here we come.

With Klobuchar's endorsement, it's almost certain that Biden becomes viable in Minnesota. Whatever Minnesota delegates Bernie gains from her dropping out will be more than offset by the fact that Biden will hit the 15% threshold

Biden had one good day and now everyone is bowing down to him. Very odd. I do not think he can win a general. He was not raising money and has no message. Get excited.

CalvinBall wrote:brantt you gonna vote biden if he is the nominee?

Only if you are his running mate.

jamiethekiller wrote:

Brantt wrote:Feel bad for the people who voted early. If they didn't vote for Biden or Sanders their vote basically didn't count.

Should be eliminated in primaries.

this staggered primary system needs to be shuttered and the whole thing needs to be rank voted.

so many states with little delegate count have such undue influence over the entire primary race.

Caucus' need to go too.

jamiethekiller wrote:

Brantt wrote:Feel bad for the people who voted early. If they didn't vote for Biden or Sanders their vote basically didn't count.

Should be eliminated in primaries.

this staggered primary system needs to be shuttered and the whole thing needs to be rank voted.

so many states with little delegate count have such undue influence over the entire primary race.

Staggered primaries are, I would argue, good for democracy. If you had a national, single-day primary, somebody like Buttigieg would have been out before he started. Because we vote a few states at a time, particularly at the beginning, it permits a little-known, but talented, candidate to focus all his/her energy on a single race at a time, and by winning or finishing strong perhaps build a campaign for the big days like Super Tuesday. It didn't work out for Buttigieg, but not because the system doesn't help, but rather because his base was too narrow.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:

Brantt wrote:Feel bad for the people who voted early. If they didn't vote for Biden or Sanders their vote basically didn't count.

Should be eliminated in primaries.

this staggered primary system needs to be shuttered and the whole thing needs to be rank voted.

so many states with little delegate count have such undue influence over the entire primary race.

Staggered primaries are, I would argue, good for democracy. If you had a national, single-day primary, somebody like Buttigieg would have been out before he started. Because we vote a few states at a time, particularly at the beginning, it permits a little-known, but talented, candidate to focus all his/her energy on a single race at a time, and by winning or finishing strong perhaps build a campaign for the big days like Super Tuesday. It didn't work out for Buttigieg, but not because the system doesn't help, but rather because his base was too narrow.

This is an excellent point. Bill Clinton never would have been President if it wasn't for the staggered primaries and he was one of the country's best.

Squire wrote:

Werthless wrote:

traderdave wrote:From CNN:

Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is weighing whether to endorse Joe Biden after exiting the Democratic presidential race late Sunday night and later speaking on the phone with the former vice president and former President Barack Obama. An endorsement for Biden is likely, two people close to Buttigieg say, but whether he makes the decision before Super Tuesday is unclear.

Do we believe he dislikes Klobuchar as much as it appears? She's the only other one that might get his endorsement. Has to be Biden, and you'd think Biden would be motivated to get it by Tuesday. I wonder if he's trying to get a VP commitment from Biden.

I think there is a 95 percent chance that Biden's VP choice is an African American woman and a 99% chance its a woman. Pete just needs something to keep his profile up since he really does not have much chance at Statewide Indiana office. Right now I suspect he's just weighing whether there would be political consequences of endorsing Biden if Sanders ends up winning.

I disagree. Biden already has the black vote and I don't think there is a big gender gap with him. Plus there are a lot of voters who would be put off with an obvious "identity Politics" move. Probably the same moderate white voters Biden is trying to lure

I think he needs to go young and/or progressive

Trent Steele wrote:

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Klobuchar dropping out and endorsing Biden.

leaves minnesota all to sanders

He'll gain ground there but it's concerning most other places.

Bloomberg might have been such an absolute disaster that he hurt himself enough that with these drop outs, Biden does really well and contested convention here we come.

With Klobuchar's endorsement, it's almost certain that Biden becomes viable in Minnesota. Whatever Minnesota delegates Bernie gains from her dropping out will be more than offset by the fact that Biden will hit the 15% threshold

One other point....there's only been something like 30k early ballots submitted in Minnesota. There's no comparable 2016 number since Minnesota had caucuses in 2016 before they wisely changed (even then, there were 200k people). With 40% of the remaining vote up for grab from 3 days ago, and all in the moderate lane (Amy, Pete), who knows what will happen, but it should be crazy. Most polls have Klobuchar as the 2nd most popular D in the Senate in her home state (behind Jack Reed). Bernie is going to win for sure, but this is an endorsement that matters and likely cuts into Bernie's ability to crush Minnesota from a delegate perspective.