Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments for Progressives

[tschu]

Feel free to start that "reasonable discussion" that you were yearning for

[carlfense]

 

 

However, because it's coming from her mouth, I hear "we're going to regulate coal, oil, and natural gas out of existence and borrow money to prop up a thousand Solyndras."

Eh?

 

"We're going to take care of the environment" means very different things depending on who says it. Surely you can appreciate that.

 

No doubt. I just didn't take you for one who would swallow the Fox-esque hyperbole that you just posted.

[JJ Husker]

 

There have to be some jobs in our society that just aren't suitable for raising a family or even being fully self supporting for one person. Sorry but not every job needs to keep a person above poverty level and, as stated previously, if we do raise those wages, the net result is simply that the poverty level increases. Low/No skill jobs will never put a person on easy street and they shouldn't.

Why should a full-time job in the richest country on the planet not support one person? What is the justification here? And don't give me some "market value" bullsh#t, because market value dictates that we buy our shoes from children working for 5 cents an hour in a basement in China, which isn't right either. America is so absurdly rich that if we aren't trying to make a full-time job pay self-supporting wages, what are we even doing here.

 

I don't think I've said a full-time job should not support one person. What I said was that there have to be some jobs that aren't suitable for raising a family or keeping one person above poverty level. I can agree that a 40 hour per week job should pay enough to support one person but, when it doesn't as in the case of some low/no skill fast food jobs, then I think the person that needs to support themselves or a family needs to look elsewhere for employment. There are subtle differences here. The people in management positions or positions with some responsibility or skill requirement who are working 40 hours per week should make enough to survive. But, the burger flipper, the fry scooper, etc.......sorry, in the richest country on the planet, there should be room for some jobs strictly for no skill teens to get some job experience, make a little spending money, and not blow up the whole economy by pretending they have valuable marketable skills. They don't. If we're going to prop up our economy by creating false value in the fast food service sector, what are we even doing here?

[BigRedBuster]

Feel free to start that "reasonable discussion" that you were yearning for

As for on here? Well, minus a few posts, there has been a couple topics already started that, so far, hasn't dove into a political toilet. But, this board tends to be more civil than the national debate in the heat of a campaign.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

There have to be some jobs in our society that just aren't suitable for raising a family or even being fully self supporting for one person. Sorry but not every job needs to keep a person above poverty level and, as stated previously, if we do raise those wages, the net result is simply that the poverty level increases. Low/No skill jobs will never put a person on easy street and they shouldn't.

Why should a full-time job in the richest country on the planet not support one person? What is the justification here? And don't give me some "market value" bullsh#t, because market value dictates that we buy our shoes from children working for 5 cents an hour in a basement in China, which isn't right either. America is so absurdly rich that if we aren't trying to make a full-time job pay self-supporting wages, what are we even doing here.

 

I don't think I've said a full-time job should not support one person. What I said was that there have to be some jobs that aren't suitable for raising a family or keeping one person above poverty level. I can agree that a 40 hour per week job should pay enough to support one person but, when it doesn't as in the case of some low/no skill fast food jobs, then I think the person that needs to support themselves or a family needs to look elsewhere for employment. There are subtle differences here. The people in management positions or positions with some responsibility or skill requirement who are working 40 hours per week should make enough to survive. But, the burger flipper, the fry scooper, etc.......sorry, in the richest country on the planet, there should be room for some jobs strictly for no skill teens to get some job experience, make a little spending money, and not blow up the whole economy by pretending they have valuable marketable skills. They don't. If we're going to prop up our economy by creating false value in the fast food service sector, what are we even doing here?

 

I would agree with JJ on this. Some jobs are simply not mean to support a family or create a long term career or living wage job. They are meant as entry level/teenager...etc. jobs.

 

Now, if someone is in that job long term and actually trying to make a living wage and support a family, what needs to be done to move those people into higher income wages?

[LukeinNE]

No doubt. I just didn't take you for one who would swallow the Fox-esque hyperbole that you just posted.

 

 

My tone on an issue is usually based on the seriousness of the argument someone makes. One of my biggest hobbyhorses (which hasn't really come up on here) is the unseriousness (imho, of course) of the the eco-left's energy policies. In their case, I can't think of anyone who engages in breathless hyperbole better. I'm almost certainly being unfair to Warren, but she comes out of the left wing of the Democratic Party, where the eco-left also resides. Ergo, when I hear a liberal like Warren reference environmental stewardship, my mind immediately conjures up nutters chaining themselves to pipeline construction equipment. Not unlike, in fact, Warren's Handmaiden's Tale rendering of the Hobby Lobby decision above. The distinction, of course, is that she's a US Senator and a potential Presidential candidate, and I'm a 25 year old bean counter from Nebraska.

[carlfense]

My tone on an issue is usually based on the seriousness of the argument someone makes. One of my biggest hobbyhorses (which hasn't really come up on here) is the unseriousness (imho, of course) of the the eco-left's energy policies. In their case, I can't think of anyone who engages in breathless hyperbole better. I'm almost certainly being unfair to Warren, but she comes out of the left wing of the Democratic Party, where the eco-left also resides. Ergo, when I hear a liberal like Warren reference environmental stewardship, my mind immediately conjures up nutters chaining themselves to pipeline construction equipment. Not unlike, in fact, Warren's Handmaiden's Tale rendering of the Hobby Lobby decision above. The distinction, of course, is that she's a US Senator and a potential Presidential candidate, and I'm a 25 year old bean counter from Nebraska.

So to cut to the chase . . . do you actually think that Warren wants to regulate coal, oil, and natural gas out of existence and borrow money to prop up a thousand Solyndras?

 

Your age or profession don't matter as much as the strength of your arguments.

[tschu]

 

 

 

There have to be some jobs in our society that just aren't suitable for raising a family or even being fully self supporting for one person. Sorry but not every job needs to keep a person above poverty level and, as stated previously, if we do raise those wages, the net result is simply that the poverty level increases. Low/No skill jobs will never put a person on easy street and they shouldn't.

Why should a full-time job in the richest country on the planet not support one person? What is the justification here? And don't give me some "market value" bullsh#t, because market value dictates that we buy our shoes from children working for 5 cents an hour in a basement in China, which isn't right either. America is so absurdly rich that if we aren't trying to make a full-time job pay self-supporting wages, what are we even doing here.

 

I don't think I've said a full-time job should not support one person. What I said was that there have to be some jobs that aren't suitable for raising a family or keeping one person above poverty level. I can agree that a 40 hour per week job should pay enough to support one person but, when it doesn't as in the case of some low/no skill fast food jobs, then I think the person that needs to support themselves or a family needs to look elsewhere for employment. There are subtle differences here. The people in management positions or positions with some responsibility or skill requirement who are working 40 hours per week should make enough to survive. But, the burger flipper, the fry scooper, etc.......sorry, in the richest country on the planet, there should be room for some jobs strictly for no skill teens to get some job experience, make a little spending money, and not blow up the whole economy by pretending they have valuable marketable skills. They don't. If we're going to prop up our economy by creating false value in the fast food service sector, what are we even doing here?

 

I would agree with JJ on this. Some jobs are simply not mean to support a family or create a long term career or living wage job. They are meant as entry level/teenager...etc. jobs.

 

Now, if someone is in that job long term and actually trying to make a living wage and support a family, what needs to be done to move those people into higher income wages?

 

You cannot make the distinction though, nobody can, between jobs "meant for teenagers" and other jobs. And someone will inevitably post the minimum wage chart that says that a lot of those making minimum wage are teenagers, and that's true...but any wage discussion involves everyone making between the original minimum wage and the proposed minimum. A lot of teenagers make minimum, but a lot of adult full-time will make minimum plus $0.50, or something similar. Walmart is notorious for this type of thing. Anyways, regardless of the "intent" of what you think the position is for, it doesn't matter. A 40-hour week should still be enough to provide for food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. Not necessarily anything more, but nothing less.

 

What can be done? Decreasing the inequality in this country in general (minimum wage increase is just one way of attacking this, and definitely shouldn't be the only way), making sure safety nets are in place, spending way more on education than we currently do, basically anything that increases upward mobility. That sort of stuff. I'd post more in-depth but I'm at work.

[StPaulHusker]

It would be interesting to hear what her plans would be to implement all of these beliefs

[BigRedBuster]

 

You're going to have to define what, in your opinion, "fairly defined" means

You can start here, if you'd like:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3?op=1

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371436/when-women-set-their-own-salaries-theres-still-pay-gap-patrick-brennan

 

Interesting articles on this topic. I have had questions about this stat for a long time.

 

I do agree with the red part....

 

—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.

 

 

Stats are stats. Some people will take those stats and raise the alarm that something horrible is going on. This stat is thrown out usually to imply that American employers are a bunch of sexist pigs who do nothing but keep women down.

 

Is there sexist people in the world? Sure.....but, I don't believe it is rampant like what one side makes it out to be. So, I am interested in diving into these stats more and see what really is going on. It appears that from the two articles Duke posted and the information that Knapp posted, there are reasons why on average women make less than men. Is it a reason for alarm? Or, is it simply a fact in how women and men are different in our society as it pertains to their careers.

 

My wife has an accounting major and was a controller in a fairly large business before we had kids. I believe she was being paid relative to what men and women were being paid with her experience level in that job. Then, she took about 8 years off to raise our kids. Was she paid the same when she went back into the work force? HECK NO.....was she worth the same amount when se went back into the work force??? I don't think so and neither did she. She had to basically start all over again. Now, she is a Chief Financial Officer for a fairly large construction company and back to making pretty much what men and women make at that position in this area.

 

BUT, during that time, her wages went right into all of the stats on women and men. There are literally millions of women in the same boat. Is it a case for alarm and should I run out and vote for a Democrat because they shake their fist and claim to fight for equal pay?

 

It's a good sound bite and it sure does solidify a good size of their voting base. Meanwhile, I believe women out number men in college and many are going into professions that pay way more than the average college grad. (Dentistry, Veterinarian, Pediatricians...etc.)

 

On the flip side, right now with current law, what would happen to be if I had a work force out here that all did the same job but I started women at $15 per hour and men at $20 per hour? Hint....I would be in one hell of a bad situation if someone actually filed a complaint. And....rightfully so.

[carlfense]

It would be interesting to hear what her plans would be to implement all of these beliefs

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

There have to be some jobs in our society that just aren't suitable for raising a family or even being fully self supporting for one person. Sorry but not every job needs to keep a person above poverty level and, as stated previously, if we do raise those wages, the net result is simply that the poverty level increases. Low/No skill jobs will never put a person on easy street and they shouldn't.

Why should a full-time job in the richest country on the planet not support one person? What is the justification here? And don't give me some "market value" bullsh#t, because market value dictates that we buy our shoes from children working for 5 cents an hour in a basement in China, which isn't right either. America is so absurdly rich that if we aren't trying to make a full-time job pay self-supporting wages, what are we even doing here.

 

I don't think I've said a full-time job should not support one person. What I said was that there have to be some jobs that aren't suitable for raising a family or keeping one person above poverty level. I can agree that a 40 hour per week job should pay enough to support one person but, when it doesn't as in the case of some low/no skill fast food jobs, then I think the person that needs to support themselves or a family needs to look elsewhere for employment. There are subtle differences here. The people in management positions or positions with some responsibility or skill requirement who are working 40 hours per week should make enough to survive. But, the burger flipper, the fry scooper, etc.......sorry, in the richest country on the planet, there should be room for some jobs strictly for no skill teens to get some job experience, make a little spending money, and not blow up the whole economy by pretending they have valuable marketable skills. They don't. If we're going to prop up our economy by creating false value in the fast food service sector, what are we even doing here?

 

I would agree with JJ on this. Some jobs are simply not mean to support a family or create a long term career or living wage job. They are meant as entry level/teenager...etc. jobs.

 

Now, if someone is in that job long term and actually trying to make a living wage and support a family, what needs to be done to move those people into higher income wages?

 

You cannot make the distinction though, nobody can, between jobs "meant for teenagers" and other jobs. And someone will inevitably post the minimum wage chart that says that a lot of those making minimum wage are teenagers, and that's true...but any wage discussion involves everyone making between the original minimum wage and the proposed minimum. A lot of teenagers make minimum, but a lot of adult full-time will make minimum plus $0.50, or something similar. Walmart is notorious for this type of thing. Anyways, regardless of the "intent" of what you think the position is for, it doesn't matter. A 40-hour week should still be enough to provide for food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. Not necessarily anything more, but nothing less.

 

What can be done? Decreasing the inequality in this country in general (minimum wage increase is just one way of attacking this, and definitely shouldn't be the only way), making sure safety nets are in place, spending way more on education than we currently do, basically anything that increases upward mobility. That sort of stuff. I'd post more in-depth but I'm at work.

 

I simply believe the discussion should be about making sure those people have the ability to move out of those jobs through job training and jobs available instead of artificially raising the wage.

[LukeinNE]

 

So to cut to the chase . . . do you actually think that Warren wants to regulate coal, oil, and natural gas out of existence and borrow money to prop up a thousand Solyndras?

 

Your age or profession don't matter as much as the strength of your arguments.

 

 

Eventually? Of course she does. Within the constraints of an 8 year presidency, she'd probably only succeed in raising everyone's electric bill and gas prices.

[StPaulHusker]

Did Warren actually call these "Commandments" or was that something the author just decided to call them?

[carlfense]

 

 

So to cut to the chase . . . do you actually think that Warren wants to regulate coal, oil, and natural gas out of existence and borrow money to prop up a thousand Solyndras?

 

Your age or profession don't matter as much as the strength of your arguments.

 

 

Eventually? Of course she does. Within the constraints of an 8 year presidency, she'd probably only succeed in raising everyone's electric bill and gas prices.

 

Yikes.