Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments for Progressives

[LukeinNE]

 

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.

 

 

The US is actually near the top of global charts when it comes to education spending. The answer here isn't more funding, it's having the courage to take on entrenched interests that harm the system (teacher's unions, economically segregated school districts), the serenity to accept that there are some factors we can't change (a stubbornly permanent underclass that is going to pull down our national numbers) and of course the wisdom to know the difference.

 

Yikes.

 

Indeed. I would not consider my voting for her to be very likely.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

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.

 

 

The US is actually near the top of global charts when it comes to education spending. The answer here isn't more funding, it's having the courage to take on entrenched interests that harm the system (teacher's unions, economically segregated school districts), the serenity to accept that there are some factors we can't change (a stubbornly permanent underclass that is going to pull down our national numbers) and of course the wisdom to know the difference.

 

Yikes.

 

Indeed. I would not consider my voting for her to be very likely.

 

But is the money being spent wisely?

[tschu]

 

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.

 

 

And I don't see why there's mutual exclusion there.

 

I'm hardly advocating for your Walmart cashier to lead a comfortable middle-class life. Just enough to provide the necessities. No reason why that can't happen while also giving people the opportunities and incentive to work towards something better.

[Creighton Duke]

 

 

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.

 

 

And I don't see why there's mutual exclusion there.

 

I'm hardly advocating for your Walmart cashier to lead a comfortable middle-class life. Just enough to provide the necessities. No reason why that can't happen while also giving people the opportunities and incentive to work towards something better.

 

How is this defined? Expensive cell phones with "everything" plans? Satellite TV? Large quantities of junk food?

[tschu]

I defined it like 4 posts ago. Weird that you'd jump to 3 examples of things that are obviously not necessities. That's productive discussion.

[knapplc]

 

 

The US is actually near the top of global charts when it comes to education spending. The answer here isn't more funding, it's having the courage to take on entrenched interests that harm the system (teacher's unions, economically segregated school districts), the serenity to accept that there are some factors we can't change (a stubbornly permanent underclass that is going to pull down our national numbers) and of course the wisdom to know the difference.

 

 

 

I see what you did there.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

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.

 

 

And I don't see why there's mutual exclusion there.

 

I'm hardly advocating for your Walmart cashier to lead a comfortable middle-class life. Just enough to provide the necessities. No reason why that can't happen while also giving people the opportunities and incentive to work towards something better.

 

Let me ask this. Is there a level of minimum wage that you would not support?

[Creighton Duke]

I defined it like 4 posts ago. Weird that you'd jump to 3 examples of things that are obviously not necessities. That's productive discussion.

It actually is a valid question and does contribute to productive discussion. Go into many struggling neighborhoods and you will see all of these things (even though people making much more money have none of these "luxuries") and, in many cases, government is subsidizing all of these things.

 

How much food is necessary? What kind of shelter? Work clothing and casual wear?

[tschu]

 

Let me ask this. Is there a level of minimum wage that you would not support?

 

 

Is there a level that you would?

[BigRedBuster]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

And I don't see why there's mutual exclusion there.

 

 

Because I don't think they need to be. It is common knowledge that it is easier to get a job when you have a job. So....I'm fine with a lot of entry level positions that are easy for the company to pay for. People get into the job, get work experience, something to put on an application to the next level. Help them then get more training to get to that next level and do what we can to make sure that job is there for them. They then leave that entry level job, they are in a position of more income and the entry level job opens up for someone else.

[carlfense]

Indeed. I would not consider my voting for her to be very likely.

Unless you live in or are moving to Massachusetts I wouldn't consider your voting for her to be very likely either.

[sd'sker]

A stronger minimum wage, Blackburn said, would negatively affect the ability of young workers to enter the workforce as teenagers, and would prevent them from learning responsibility like she did when she was a teenage retail employee making a seemingly-measly $2.15 an hour in Mississippi:

 

BLACKBURN: What we’re hearing from moms and from school teachers is that there needs to be a lower entry level, so that you can get 16-, 17-, 18-year-olds into the process. Chuck, I remember my first job, when I was working in a retail store, down there, growing up in Laurel, Mississippi. I was making like $2.15 an hour. And I was taught how to responsibly handle those customer interactions. And I appreciated that opportunity.

 

Making $2.15 an hour certainly does sound worse than today’s minimum wage, which federal law mandates must be at least $7.25 an hour. But what Blackburn didn’t realize is that she accidentally undermined her own argument, since the value of the dollar has changed immensely since her teenage years. Blackburn was born in 1952, so she likely took that retail job at some point between 1968 and 1970. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, the $2.15 an hour Blackburn made then is worth somewhere between $12.72 and $14.18 an hour in today’s dollars, depending on which year she started.

At that time, the minimum wage was $1.60, equivalent to $10.56 in today’s terms. Today’s minimum wage is equivalent to just $1.10 an hour in 1968 dollars, meaning the teenage Blackburn managed to enter the workforce making almost double the wage she now says is keeping teenagers out of the workforce.

 

link.

 

it is all about spending power and stagnating wages are a big problem. so if you are worried about inflation, this should be why.

[LukeinNE]

Just for everyone's information, here's a graph showing the nominal (blue) value of the minimum wage and the real, inflation adjusted value of it (red).

 

[tschu]

 

I defined it like 4 posts ago. Weird that you'd jump to 3 examples of things that are obviously not necessities. That's productive discussion.

It actually is a valid question and does contribute to productive discussion. Go into many struggling neighborhoods and you will see all of these things (even though people making much more money have none of these "luxuries") and, in many cases, government is subsidizing all of these things.

 

How much food is necessary? What kind of shelter? Work clothing and casual wear?

 

 

You're never going to prevent this kind of "waste."

 

If a poor family eats nothing but ramen on their food stamp budget for a month in order to save up to buy a couple of lobster dinners, people lose their minds, even though the amount of money spent if they had just eaten a fairly normal diet. Similarly people hate it when they see a kid living in the projects wearing a new pair of Nikes. It's inevitable, and not even really a problem, but the solution isn't to cut back on the money. Up on the Pine Ridge Reservation, people spend a huge chunk of their government money on alcohol. Yet you'd agree that the solution is not to cut back their funding even further, correct? The fact remains that enough should be earned where people can provide for themselves. If they want to live in the most horrific, unlivable shack for $75/month or something, way below the established housing baseline, in order to save more money to buy nicer clothes, then that's a tradeoff, and a personal choice that people should be able to make.

 

But yes, if your point that a baseline for food, clothing, etc needs to be established, then I agree.

[tschu]

Just for everyone's information, here's a graph showing the nominal (blue) value of the minimum wage and the real, inflation adjusted value of it (red).

 

 

This is why it's a problem. Minimum wage has effectively gone down significantly compared to cost of living.