because it is the billionaires that employ us and it is the politician's job to keep the economy in the region that they represent churning. Unfavourable legislation pushes businesses to make tough economic choices such as manufacturing elsewhere, leaving the politicians (rightly or wrongly) responsible for the company moving abroad due to the choices they've made.
When it comes to emission standards, it may actually have to do with U.S. manufacturers lagging behind other international brands to create affordable cars. If zero emissions hurt the sales of bread and butter vehicles like Trucks and SUVs, that's less profit for the companies that lead in their manufacturing.
In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country’s largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards, a New York Times investigation has found.
This has become far too common and far too unsurprising in our country. It's far too easy for wealthy groups to buy political power and re-write laws for their own benefit. I don't see why the leaders of a wealthy corporation are entitled to more political power than ordinary Americans simply because they have millions of dollars to burn on lobbying and PR work.
Billionaires already have the right to vote, speak, and run for political office. Why would they deserve more political powers than the rest of us?
Because they have the power to make decisions ordinary people do not. I'm not saying it's democratic because it isn't, but I'm sorry, they're in positions that affect way more than a few people. A corporation that employs thousands of people is more important than Joe Blow who can't pay his electric bill and is pissed off because he can't get a great job since he decided to smoke weed instead of going to college or trade school. God may see all people as equals, but that is not reality...
It's not that I think an individual (Joe Blow) is just as important as a collection of individuals (a corporation that employs thousands of people). The problem is that when a company does flex its muscles, it's only the company's leaders who decide what that company wants. The reality is that the leaders of a corporation don't even have the best interests of their own employees at heart, much less the best interests of their industry, their customers, or the nation at large.
If an oil company thinks fuel efficiency standards are too high, its employees are free to speak out in the free marketplace of ideas and say "we're a big company, we have a big role in the economy, and it's important for the nation that we should keep making lots of money." And if that claim does have merit, then people will agree, of their own volition, that yes, "you're a big company and so you're important enough that our laws should cater to your interests."
And if that claim doesn't have merit, then people will say that no, "I want car makers to create more fuel-efficient vehicles so I don't have to pay as much to fill up my tank."
If a company's interests are more important than other people's interests, they're perfectly free to say that and then let people judge for themselves. But secretly financing Facebook ads without disclosing where they're coming from? Lobbying policymakers behind closed doors? That's not being open about your interests or honest about your motives. That's just using money to abuse the system.
What does it tell you about a company, that they don't think their ideas can win in the free marketplace of ideas? What does it tell you when they hide their activities from the public?
@jjstraka34 Oh its been longer than decades. Before employment was at all regulated in the US, people had 80 hour 7 days a week workdays, no sick days, no bathroom breaks, no lunch breaks, and they weren't even guaranteed to be paid in real money. This was why the minimum wage was implemented, Workers had to fight to keep working conditions from being literal murder, as well as a guaranteed minimum LIVING wage. Sorry everyone who says minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. That's a complete misundertanding of how and why the minimum wage was created in the first place.
@Balrog99@deltago That might actually mean something if these billionaires were making good or responsible decisions. Reality shows us otherwise.
In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country’s largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards, a New York Times investigation has found.
This has become far too common and far too unsurprising in our country. It's far too easy for wealthy groups to buy political power and re-write laws for their own benefit. I don't see why the leaders of a wealthy corporation are entitled to more political power than ordinary Americans simply because they have millions of dollars to burn on lobbying and PR work.
Billionaires already have the right to vote, speak, and run for political office. Why would they deserve more political powers than the rest of us?
Because they have the power to make decisions ordinary people do not. I'm not saying it's democratic because it isn't, but I'm sorry, they're in positions that affect way more than a few people. A corporation that employs thousands of people is more important than Joe Blow who can't pay his electric bill and is pissed off because he can't get a great job since he decided to smoke weed instead of going to college or trade school. God may see all people as equals, but that is not reality...
It's not that I think an individual (Joe Blow) is just as important as a collection of individuals (a corporation that employs thousands of people). The problem is that when a company does flex its muscles, it's only the company's leaders who decide what that company wants. The reality is that the leaders of a corporation don't even have the best interests of their own employees at heart, much less the best interests of their industry, their customers, or the nation at large.
If an oil company thinks fuel efficiency standards are too high, its employees are free to speak out in the free marketplace of ideas and say "we're a big company, we have a big role in the economy, and it's important for the nation that we should keep making lots of money." And if that claim does have merit, then people will agree, of their own volition, that yes, "you're a big company and so you're important enough that our laws should cater to your interests."
And if that claim doesn't have merit, then people will say that no, "I want car makers to create more fuel-efficient vehicles so I don't have to pay as much to fill up my tank."
If a company's interests are more important than other people's interests, they're perfectly free to say that and then let people judge for themselves. But secretly financing Facebook ads without disclosing where they're coming from? Lobbying policymakers behind closed doors? That's not being open about your interests or honest about your motives. That's just using money to abuse the system.
What does it tell you about a company, that they don't think their ideas can win in the free marketplace of ideas? What does it tell you when they hide their activities from the public?
It tells me that they don't think they can make fuel-efficient vehicles that customers will actually buy. This is true, by and large or folks would be rushing out to buy Volts and Teslas instead of SUV's. When they can get me an electric vehicle with a range of at least 500 miles and it costs roughly the same as the gasoline alternative, I'll be one of the 1st in line.
And if that claim doesn't have merit, then people will say that no, "I want car makers to create more fuel-efficient vehicles so I don't have to pay as much to fill up my tank."
People already have that say when they go and purchase a vehicle. The free marketplace allows them to choose which ever car they think is more beneficial to them: A gas guzzling SUV that can handle sleet and slushed covered roads during a snow storm, or a fuel-efficient sedan that can get them from point A-B easily and cheaply in a city.
What standard emissions does is take away a choice to consumers (making a even cheaper sedan for example). Now you can say having lower emissions is better for the country and why the bill was passed in the first place.
In the United States, states can follow either California’s emission standards or the federal level but cannot create their own happy middle. Cali’s gets stricter each year. Is it due to having the environmental best interest at heart, or a company’s like Tesla’s?
@Balrog99: You're confusing oil companies with auto manufacturers. I should have made the distinction more clear, because the impact of these regulations is very different on each industry, and the people spending dark money here belong to the former group; not the latter.
The regulations in question require auto manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. Auto manufacturers just wanted to slightly ease the regulations so it would be easier for them to meet those standards. Oil companies want no such regulations at all, because the very concept of fuel efficiency is bad for the fossil fuel industry: if cars require less fuel, oil companies will be able to sell less. Consumers, meanwhile, benefit from fuel efficiency because they want to spend less money, not more, at the gas station. This isn't even factoring in the environmental issue of pollution and greenhouse gases. I bought my car specifically because it was fuel efficient and I didn't want to burn lots of money on gas.
Incidentally, we're expected to have 300-mile-range electric vehicles by 2020 or 2025 that should cost the same or less than the gas-powered kind, with the drawback that charging it would take about 30 minutes. By that time, though, self-driving cars should be able to go get charged on their own while we're at home.
That might actually mean something if these billionaires were making good or responsible decisions. Reality shows us otherwise.
Once again, the only two things financially a company can control is it’s labour and the price of its goods and services.
If something like minimum wage goes up (let’s make it easy) from 7.50 to living wage standards of $14, The company has a choice to either fire half of employees or raise it’s prices by 50% to just break even from that increase.
If they don’t think thier products can sell for 50% more due to supply and demand, if they choose raising their prices, they might lose enough customers that they are no longer profitable, making that employee they kept lose their job as well, so sadly, a company will always err on the side of caution and control their costs instead of relying on profits.
Even if they find a happy middle, raise prices by 10% while laying off 10% of their work force, someone is still losing their job.
Flat out raising minimum wage is not a good idea, even if it is considered noble.
I stated before, there should be two standards, living wage and minimum wage where a company pays fines/taxes if their living wages is lower than a percentage of thier profit.
While we’re back on Living Wage, I’ll also mention that if a company isn’t providing housing for their employees, they really have no control over this number. Perhaps it should be up to the politicans to make minimum wage, living wage again by making sure affordable housing, public transportation and services as well as basic food supplies are affordable to everyone.” Instead of passing the buck to employers and throwing them under the bus.
@Balrog99: You're confusing oil companies with auto manufacturers. I should have made the distinction more clear, because the impact of these regulations is very different on each industry, and the people spending dark money here belong to the former group; not the latter.
The regulations in question require auto manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. Auto manufacturers just wanted to slightly ease the regulations so it would be easier for them to meet those standards. Oil companies want no such regulations at all, because the very concept of fuel efficiency is bad for the fossil fuel industry: if cars require less fuel, oil companies will be able to sell less. Consumers, meanwhile, benefit from fuel efficiency because they want to spend less money, not more, at the gas station. This isn't even factoring in the environmental issue of pollution and greenhouse gases. I bought my car specifically because it was fuel efficient and I didn't want to burn lots of money on gas.
Incidentally, we're expected to have 300-mile-range electric vehicles by 2020 or 2025 that should cost the same or less than the gas-powered kind, with the drawback that charging it would take about 30 minutes. By that time, though, self-driving cars should be able to go get charged on their own while we're at home.
1.39 million people.
That is how many people work in the oil field industry in the United States. And these aren’t minimum wage jobs either as refinery workers make roughly $30 hr.
That’s a hefty bit of economic stability, one that can probably increase if regulations were eased is probably the argument oil companies are making to politicans whose job relies on a strong economy.
Once again, if this is a free marketplace of ideas, the notion of “I am going to buy a car that pollutes less even though it costs me more,” should be able to stand on its own without regulations now.
I've said before that there's a superior alternative to raising the minimum wage: imposing taxes on companies that pay below a certain threshold (it could be $15; it could be something else), while factoring in side benefits like employer-provided healthcare, adjusted for purchasing power parity. This would discourage employers from paying extremely low wages without flat-out eliminating jobs that simply aren't worth $15 an hour. A simplified example would be imposing a $2/hr tax on wages below $8, which would be a softer alternative to a $10 minimum wage (a proper law would be more complex than that, of course).
Ideally, that tax would be implemented while factoring in the ratio of a company's net worth to its number of employees who are American citizens. In other words, if you're a rich company but you don't spend that money creating jobs, the above tax would operate assuming you had X numbers of employees being paid $0 an hour. That would encourage hiring more workers as well as offering better pay, and also make it harder for companies to rely on illegal labor (you'd need to provide SSN's in order to avoid the tax).
So I don't think raising the minimum wage by itself is an ideal solution. But it's worth pointing out that the reason why employers pay minimum wage isn't because it's all they can afford. Employers pay minimum wage because they can, and because it's in their best interests to pay their workers as little as possible. There are plenty of jobs that are worth $15 an hour, but get paid substantially less for the sole reason that workers have little bargaining power and employers know they can get $15/hour labor for half the price.
If you cranked the minimum wage up $15 an hour and didn't take any extra measures to prevent layoffs, some jobs would indeed be lost. But let's not assume that every minimum wage job is truly worth nothing more than minimum wage in the eyes of employers. Lots of companies pay dirt wages because it maximizes profits; not because it's the only way they can "break even." Most workers are worth a lot more than they're getting paid.
Once again, if this is a free marketplace of ideas, the notion of “I am going to buy a car that pollutes less even though it costs me more,” should be able to stand on its own without regulations now.
Three problems: first, if this was in the best interests of the average consumer, then oil companies would have no need to be secretive about their activities. You don't have to spend millions of dollars lobbying for something that everybody wants.
Second, you're assuming that fuel-efficient cars necessarily cost more for the consumer. This is not the case. In the long run, they also save money because they require less gas.
Third, you're also confusing oil companies with auto manufacturers, and conflating the interests of both groups with consumers. Fuel efficiency standards are applied to auto manufacturers, who need to spend more money to design more fuel-efficient cars (innovation costs money), which indirectly hurts oil companies because the demand for oil will decrease when the average car requires less fuel. The auto manufacturer spends more on designing better cars, and so prices raise slightly so that they can off-set part (but not all) of the cost of the improved fuel efficiency.
As for the consumer, the end result is a slightly more expensive car that pollutes less and saves you money on gas. I'm a consumer and, at worst, this represents a wash for me. I actually already paid for a slightly more expensive vehicle that was more fuel-efficient because it would save me money in the long run (and it has).
@deltago It worked for most of the 1900's. I don't think the problem is that companies can't cover it. Especially since executives make thousands of times more plus bonuses.
That might actually mean something if these billionaires were making good or responsible decisions. Reality shows us otherwise.
Once again, the only two things financially a company can control is it’s labour and the price of its goods and services.
If something like minimum wage goes up (let’s make it easy) from 7.50 to living wage standards of $14, The company has a choice to either fire half of employees or raise it’s prices by 50% to just break even from that increase.
If they don’t think thier products can sell for 50% more due to supply and demand, if they choose raising their prices, they might lose enough customers that they are no longer profitable, making that employee they kept lose their job as well, so sadly, a company will always err on the side of caution and control their costs instead of relying on profits.
Even if they find a happy middle, raise prices by 10% while laying off 10% of their work force, someone is still losing their job.
Flat out raising minimum wage is not a good idea, even if it is considered noble.
@deltago while you're right that classical economic models suggest that a minimum wage should reduce employment, real world experience is that there is no significant impact. Possible reasons for this include: - classical models assume perfect information without cost. In practice transaction costs are significant both for employees and employers and minimum wages tend to both reduce those costs directly and indirectly (as a result of less turnover of staff). - classical models also assume prices are set at the equilibrium of supply and demand, that demand is price elastic and that an individual business has no ability to influence this equilibrium. In practice, in most industries, an increase in costs to all businesses can drive prices up across the board to compensate without a significant impact on demand (that's much less true where there is strong competition from imports and no tariff protection). - cost differentials between employees tend to narrow, i.e. the gaps between wages paid to staff become narrower, reducing the apparent cost of the minimum wage. - the increased purchasing power of low-paid staff promotes demand, which translates into more jobs. Of course, while there may be no impact on jobs overall, there will certainly be some impact on the nature and distribution of jobs, which will create winners and losers.
This site refers to numerous studies of the impact of a minimum wage. This site refers to a major literature review and summarizes the changes in economists' views in recent years about the impact of a minimum wage.
I do know that when certain states mandated higher minimum wages (also cities like Seattle), conservatives screamed like they were watching babies being gutted about how this would make businesses lose workers because they could no longer afford to hire or keep them. But...
“We find that they are working just as the policymakers and voters who enacted these policies intended,” said Sylvia Allegretto, co-author of the report and co-chair of Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics. “So far they are raising the earnings of low-wage workers without causing significant employment losses.” Wage floors have continued climbing and are higher and more widespread now, with 10 major cities, seven states, and dozens of other local governments passing laws to boost minimum wages to between $12 and $15 an hour in the coming years, eventually covering more than a fifth of the U.S. workforce. On average across the six cities studied, “a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage increases earnings in the food services industry between 1.3 and 2.5 percent,” the researchers found. The Berkeley team said in a news release that their study “casts further doubt” on the 2017 findings of University of Washington researchers that Seattle’s minimum wage increase led to fewer hours and jobs for low-wage workers.
It worked for most of the 1900's. I don't think the problem is that companies can't cover it. Especially since executives make thousands of times more plus bonuses.
I agree. If you can find it, read the book Chocolate Wars. It showcases the history of the world’s chocolate manufacturers from Hershey literally building a town for its employees to the corporate buyout of Roundtree using bank loans that made a profit for investors and the banks at the expense of the average worker.
It kinda showcases where Capitalism went wrong and that is turning to publicly traded companies where short term gain out weighs long term stability.
@Grond0 I’ll take a look at those studies now. But there is a difference from a study to actually living it which I am currently doing in Ontario. I can tell you, fairly that: prices have risen in the last year and companies (or at least mine) have made cuts to staffing levels because of the huge increase in labour costs that was forced upon industries.
I also know that Seattle has/is doing a study on minimum wage in its municipality and that it has been coming back positive but that one is actually tiered as I previously suggested (but in a different way, large corporations have to pay more if they don’t offer Health Insurance), $11.50 for tip based industries.
In a small bubble of Seattle, (less than million people), larger companies like McDonald’s (having 15 stores) can eat that cost no problem, but if that goes Federally (14146 stores) they are going to have a problem.
Edit: I should also add that slowly increasing the minimum wage is ok, but doing a large jump like Ontario did is not. If your region is at 7.50 an hour and you think living wage should be $16, raising it to $16 right away is where these issues arise. Raising it slowly and controlled over a set amount of years allows businesses adjust properly to these new cost increases.
Edit2: I will also add that 7.50 minimum wage in the states, that hasn’t been raised since the 60s is stupidly low and does need to be raised just not all at once. I still believe it should be two tiered however between living wage and minimum wage.
@deltago Keep in mind that executives make thousands of times more money, yet somehow there is just no way to pay their employess a few dollars more.
Sure. In large corporations. But lets say I want to open a smoothie shop in my local mall and employ highschoolers at night, maybe 1 or 2 supervisors who are not in school or in college to work the day shifts with me. I am not making a thousand times more than they are (I fact, I’d probably have to take an hourly rate for the time I put into the business as well). I do not expect the high schoolers to stay with me forever. I expect them to go to college (using the wages I am providing to help pay for it) and go into another field where I hire the next batch of teenagers to replace them.
These employees do not need a living wage salary. I expect/assume they are still living at home rent free and public transportation is covered from a student rate. I also assume they will get a better job, taking what they learnt working for my little smoothie shop with them wherever they go in life. The Supervisors on the other hand would probably get cost of living however but would also have more responsibility in helping me run the business. I would not expect a supervisor to take minimum wage, and if I want to limit their turn over, I’d treat them responsiblity.
That’s a small business who only has to answer to it’s customers and it’s employees.
Larger companies need to answer to someone else - shareholders, who expect to turn a profit and limit losses, even on the short term. They’re the ones who are making the millions of dollars and if they wanted, could probably force my little smoothie shop out of business with undercutting tactics and a focused advertising campaign. Larger corporations (like Walmart) like that should be held responsible and treat their employees better and share the wealth a bit more, but it shouldn’t be a blanket across the board, because not all businesses owners are multimillionaires.
@Grond0 I’ll take a look at those studies now. But there is a difference from a study to actually living it which I am currently doing in Ontario. I can tell you, fairly that: prices have risen in the last year and companies (or at least mine) have made cuts to staffing levels because of the huge increase in labour costs that was forced upon industries.
I also know that Seattle has/is doing a study on minimum wage in its municipality and that it has been coming back positive but that one is actually tiered as I previously suggested (but in a different way, large corporations have to pay more if they don’t offer Health Insurance), $11.50 for tip based industries.
In a small bubble of Seattle, (less than million people), larger companies like McDonald’s (having 15 stores) can eat that cost no problem, but if that goes Federally (14146 stores) they are going to have a problem.
Edit: I should also add that slowly increasing the minimum wage is ok, but doing a large jump like Ontario did is not. If your region is at 7.50 an hour and you think living wage should be $16, raising it to $16 right away is where these issues arise. Raising it slowly and controlled over a set amount of years allows businesses adjust properly to these new cost increases.
@deltago there may be advantages to a big jump because it presents the same problem at the same time to everyone.
I've done a very quick search, but haven't been able to find a comprehensive study on the impact on Ontario (probably because it's still too recent to give reliable results for an academic study). This piece refers to problems and losses in jobs along the same lines as you referred to. However, both this and this are more recent reviews and suggest that there has been no impact on jobs.
I suspect the difference in views mainly reflects the methodology. If you only look at low paid industries, you are likely to see some loss of jobs. However, that impact is counter-balanced by increases in other areas as a result of the overall economic stimulus provided by higher wages.
Even if there's no negative impact on jobs overall, I agree there are legitimate reasons for concern - for instance because you may well see fewer jobs for unskilled workers. My son is disabled and I think I've posted before about the differing views on the impact of minimum wage laws on the disabled. One view is that it's right to have a minimum wage to provide the same basic dignity for everyone. However, an opposing view is that the minimum wage reduces the chance of work for the disabled and hence robs some of them of the dignity associated with having some sort of job. It's a fair question and I can see both perspectives have merit ...
@deltago "I expect them to go to college (using the wages I am providing to help pay for it) and go into another field where I hire the next batch of teenagers to replace them. " There is simply no way. College is far too expensive for a part time job to cover.
"These employees do not need a living wage salary. I expect/assume they are still living at home rent free and public transportation is covered from a student rate. I also assume they will get a better job, taking what they learnt working for my little smoothie shop with them wherever they go in life."
Yes they do. Everyone needs a living wage. Its how one is able to live. There are quite a few assumptions here that depends on ideal social conditions as well. Also, no company that currently employs full time gives a rat crap of someone's experience in part time retail.
It worked for most of the 1900's. I don't think the problem is that companies can't cover it. Especially since executives make thousands of times more plus bonuses.
I agree. If you can find it, read the book Chocolate Wars. It showcases the history of the world’s chocolate manufacturers from Hershey literally building a town for its employees to the corporate buyout of Roundtree using bank loans that made a profit for investors and the banks at the expense of the average worker.
It kinda showcases where Capitalism went wrong and that is turning to publicly traded companies where short term gain out weighs long term stability.
@Grond0 I’ll take a look at those studies now. But there is a difference from a study to actually living it which I am currently doing in Ontario. I can tell you, fairly that: prices have risen in the last year and companies (or at least mine) have made cuts to staffing levels because of the huge increase in labour costs that was forced upon industries.
I also know that Seattle has/is doing a study on minimum wage in its municipality and that it has been coming back positive but that one is actually tiered as I previously suggested (but in a different way, large corporations have to pay more if they don’t offer Health Insurance), $11.50 for tip based industries.
In a small bubble of Seattle, (less than million people), larger companies like McDonald’s (having 15 stores) can eat that cost no problem, but if that goes Federally (14146 stores) they are going to have a problem.
Edit: I should also add that slowly increasing the minimum wage is ok, but doing a large jump like Ontario did is not. If your region is at 7.50 an hour and you think living wage should be $16, raising it to $16 right away is where these issues arise. Raising it slowly and controlled over a set amount of years allows businesses adjust properly to these new cost increases.
Edit2: I will also add that 7.50 minimum wage in the states, that hasn’t been raised since the 60s is stupidly low and does need to be raised just not all at once. I still believe it should be two tiered however between living wage and minimum wage.
Don't forget inflation. Inflation keeps going up, but Minimum wage doesn't keep pace. That's why the wage may go up, but the inflation does, too. That's why wages don't keep pace with the cost of living.
Plus, on top of it, workers work hours keep rising, and it gets ridiculous when there is workplace pressure to *not* take time off and to work long overtimes without compensation. Corporate culture says you have to be so devoted to your job that your job is more important than your health or well-being. Sure, you may "officially" work 40 or 45 hours a week, but in actuality, you are putting in 90 to seem like a "good" employee. That's just exploitative. And who gets the payoff all of this extra work? Not you- your employer.
@deltago "I expect them to go to college (using the wages I am providing to help pay for it) and go into another field where I hire the next batch of teenagers to replace them. " There is simply no way. College is far too expensive for a part time job to cover.
"These employees do not need a living wage salary. I expect/assume they are still living at home rent free and public transportation is covered from a student rate. I also assume they will get a better job, taking what they learnt working for my little smoothie shop with them wherever they go in life."
Yes they do. Everyone needs a living wage. Its how one is able to live. There are quite a few assumptions here that depends on ideal social conditions as well. Also, no company that currently employs full time gives a rat crap of someone's experience in part time retail.
I think this is roughly emblematic of a 1970's mindset where someone could work part-time at a summer job and expect to save enough money to pay of school tuition. We're a very (very) long way away from that.
These were the same times where one could reasonable afford to buy their own home within 2 to 3 years of leaving school, rather than owning only a crippling amount of student debt.
Not by chance, this was also probably the last time minimum wage was also a living wage.
The reason I originally posted my comment about employees not being castigated for treating employers the EXACT same way employers are allowed to treat them (without castigation) is because of the practice of "At-will employment". It is nearly universal across the United States, and basically means you can be fired from your job at any time, for any reason, without cause. Being fired from a job for cause is one thing (because that has happened to me in the past as well, like I'm sure it has for most people). It sucks, but you can usually see it coming, and it's at least partially (if not mostly) your fault. Being fired simply because At-will employment exists an as accepted policy is another matter entirely. The sense of anger that fills up in you when you go to work with NO indication you are going to be out of a job hours later and are escorted out of the building like a criminal because (since you have been let go) they no longer trust you not to take "revenge" out on the company is beyond humiliating, on top of everything else.
This happened at my last two steady, long-term jobs. I was never given any advance notice, had in at least one case gone out of my way to help the company at every opportunity for two years, had ZERO missed days in two years (even though I had personal issues management knew about that would have given me far more of an excuse to miss time than any other employee in the building, instead, I always planned my necessary time away around my earned time-off). No write-ups, no warnings. Just see ya later. So excuse me if I break out the world's smallest violin for businesses who can "ghost" an employee at any time and no one bats an eyelash. But when a worker does it, it's somehow considered bad manners.
There is no "power dynamic" between employers and employees. A dynamic would imply that one side (the employee) has any power to begin with at all. They don't. Our society, by and large, WORSHIPS the business owner in almost the same way acolytes of Ayn Rand do. People think her philosophy is some kind of fringe theory, but it's basically how the American labor market has functioned for decades. If you aren't one of the producers who owns a company, you are an expendable cog who has no more rights than a fire ant. Her novel "Atlas Shrugged" remains a core tenant of the conservative movement in this country, where everyone who is a business owner is a "productive individual" and everyone else is literally referred to as a "looter", "parasite" or "moocher". This is the kind of society we end up with when those at the top of the ladder are treated as demi-gods.
Yes, and don't forget the "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality. If you can't find a job, can't find a job that pays you a living wage, or are poor, it's all your own fault for not working harder, working longer, getting a better job, etc.
Even if you work 2 or 3 jobs, put all your extra time into the company and there are no better jobs, you're still at fault. If you just tried harder or did something- anything!- better, you would not be in this situation. Somehow. As if miracles happen.
Before the inevitable "life isn't fair" comment comes in, let me first address that I (and mostly everyone else) realizes that. The problem is we don't even ATTEMPT to be fair. And for god sakes don't sit here and tell me in THIS kind of capitalistic society (which is honestly starting to approach Anarcho-capitalism at this point) that a worker somehow "owes" it to their employer to give them a heads up before moving on when the employer themselves, BY LAW, owes an employee absolutely nothing. On top of everything else, I'm not going to have this arbitrary code of acceptable conduct thrown on top of the pile as well, which only ONE side of relationship is expected to abide by.
Even Democrats are by NO means immune to this cult-like adoration of the business owner as a concept (especially the small business owner, if ever their was a class of people who gets their boots licked by politicians from all sides of the aisle, this is the one). But at least they make an ATTEMPT at trying to pass laws relating to worker's rights, unions, etc etc. Republicans give absolutely no shits about anyone who cashes a paycheck. They only care about the people who write them. I suppose that's why their current leader is a guy who has a history of not even paying the people who do work for him, or engaging in a fraudulent "university" preying on desperate people.
So once again, bare with me as I am probably going to use Canadian numbers for this but paying for college (not university, university is a rip off) is entirely possible for a teenager who has little to no other expenses to pay for:
One semester of Ontario college can cost roughly $3000 - $4200. 11 per hour for 6 hour shifts 3.5 times per week = $231 per week means within 14 weeks you will pay off one semester of college. 24 weeks for a year of college. 48 weeks, or an entire year working part time 3-4, 6-hour shifts a week can pay for a full 2 year program.
I’ve done this twice and I am debt free because of it. Minimum wage in Ontario is now $14 so kids have more disposable income to put away if needed.
Once again, Canadian numbers but we’re a bunch of socialist up here so0o0o...
~
Someone mentioned inflation as well but higher wages actually affect inflation:
Cost-push inflation is a result of increase in the prices of production process inputs. Examples include increase in labor costs to manufacture a good or offer a service, or increase in the cost of raw material. These developments lead to higher cost for the finished product or service, and contribute to inflation.
Giving higher wages to workers actually increases jobs, because those workers now have disposable income to actually do things and buy stuff. If I can afford to eat out, this helps the restaurant who needs more people (cooks and servers) to cook my food and serve me and people like me, who also use their money to go out and have dinner. Instead of giving money to rich people, and can only have so many cars, yachts and homes. giving to the lower classes helps everyone else. "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats", if you will.
If you give it to the Rich, they are only going to squirrel it away and sit on it, which helps nobody. It creates no jobs. So how does giving money to the already rich help? It doesn't. Trickle down economics doesn't work. I have always preferred the "Bubble up" method myself. Give to the poor, let it bubble up to the rich.
@deltago What's the difference between college and university? To my knowledge those are the same thing here in the US. Also, 11 dollars and hour? Dang. That's pretty good.
@deltago What's the difference between college and university? To my knowledge those are the same thing here in the US. Also, 11 dollars and hour? Dang. That's pretty good.
There are indeed plenty of jobs around the $10-11 wage range around. But there is a reason for that, and it isn't because everyone is already in a wonderful economic situation. Those jobs have openings and nearly CONSTANT turnover because the vast majority of them are horrible. They treat workers like parts in a assembly line, and the wonder why they are always having to hire new people. The vast majority of companies are only going to do the bare minimum it takes to hold onto an employee from a monetary standpoint, so as much money can funnel to the top positions as possible. People can usually tell pretty quickly when they are being used as nothing more than, essentially, fodder. These jobs also typically offer little to no benefits whatsoever, and are only really suitable for those without a family. I can get by with a job in my part of the country in the $15-20/hr range because I don't have kids and still live a pretty damn comfortable life. Anyone who has someone else to take care of is shit out of luck.
And more woes for President Orange and his spray tan.
Can the President Be Indicted? A Long-Hidden Legal Memo Says Yes
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR25dH2sXmfLxftYNiVC5luhUG3YJcmJN7ZglgbkXy9wk5bBif2KmRi8hC0 A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starr’s independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton sheds fresh light on a constitutional puzzle that is taking on mounting significance amid the Trump-Russia inquiry: Can a sitting president be indicted? The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
Trump's former friends flip as he faces a new reality
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/trump-michael-cohen-flynn-dirty-deeds-peanuts-russia/index.html?no-st=1544733669 As the old joke goes, "He had friends?!?" The schemes employed to get President Donald Trump into the Oval Office are closing in on him, and he's frustrated at his predicament. His former fixer has now been sentenced to prison and his tabloid friend's company landed an immunity deal. Trump separately admitted that his campaign did have interactions with Russians, which, even if it is the "peanut stuff" he claims, is an important shift from the blanket denials he had made previously. The threads -- hush money for claims of affairs and interactions with Russians -- are becoming impossible to keep separate. But the pattern is clear: Schemes Trump repeatedly denied were hatched to help him get elected keep being proved true, and former friends and members of his inner circle keep heading to jail.
So, of course:
Trump cancels White House Christmas party for the press
@deltago: The situation seems much friendlier to would-be students in Canada than it is in the United States. Collegedata has some numbers about average costs for college in the US:
In its most recent survey of college pricing, the College Board reports that a moderate college budget for an in-state public college for the 2017–2018 academic year averaged $25,290. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $50,900. But what goes into these costs?
Tuition
Tuition is what colleges charge for the instruction they provide. Colleges charge tuition by the units that make up an academic year, such as a semester or quarter. Tuition at public colleges is often a bargain for state residents, but not for out-of-staters, who often pay double the tuition of residents.
Tuition can vary by major. Students in the sciences, engineering, computing, premed programs, and the fine arts often pay more. For example, at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, students enrolled in the College of Engineering pay up to $5,000 more in tuition than students pursuing other majors.
Fees
Colleges charge fees for services. These fees may include the library, campus transportation, student government, and athletic facilities.
Colleges often report a combined tuition and fees figure. According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2017–2018 school year was $34,740 at private colleges, $9,970 for state residents at public colleges, and $25,620 for out-of-state residents attending public universities.
Housing and Meals
The cost of "room and board" depends on the campus housing and food plans you choose. The College Board reports that the average cost of room and board in 2017–2018 ranged from $10,800 at four-year public schools to $12,210 at private schools. Colleges also provide room and board estimates for living off campus based on typical student costs.
Books and School Supplies
Most colleges estimate the average costs for required learning materials. Some colleges even include the cost of a computer and computer accessories. The College Board reports the average cost for books and supplies for the 2017–2018 school year was $1,250 at public colleges and $1,220 at private colleges.
Personal and Transportation Expenses
Colleges may estimate some expenses they don't bill you for. These include local transportation, clothing, personal items, entertainment, etc. The College Board reports that expenses in this category for 2017–2018 ran from $2,730 at private colleges to $3,270 at public universities.
Even a two-year degree can put you thousands of dollars in debt right off the bat, and a four-year degree, especially at a more prestigious school, can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Even if you were working full-time (while simultaneously taking classes!), a minimum wage salary would only net you $15,000 in one year, and that's not factoring in all of your living costs.
For my hometown of San Antonio, a quick stop at texasrealitycheck.com suggests that you could get by on $11,000 a year if you lived with your parents and had them pay for all utilities, used public transportation, got a 4-year degree from a public college (this is assuming you got a student loan), didn't plan on having any kids, and spent zero dollars on anything you did not need to survive (you wouldn't even get haircuts). If you want to sustain a middle-class lifestyle, however, and have a couple of kids, you'd be looking at over $100,000 a year. Two parents could split that to 50 grand a year if they both worked full-time.
It kinda depends on what you define as a minimum standard for living. Minimum wage can keep you alive, but in my hometown, you're not necessarily going to be able to afford more expensive stuff like haircuts or children unless you're making far, far more than minimum wage.
2.6 million people work for minimum wage or below minimum wage, and I'm pretty sure not all of them are getting their parents to pay for rent and utilities.
Comments
When it comes to emission standards, it may actually have to do with U.S. manufacturers lagging behind other international brands to create affordable cars. If zero emissions hurt the sales of bread and butter vehicles like Trucks and SUVs, that's less profit for the companies that lead in their manufacturing.
If an oil company thinks fuel efficiency standards are too high, its employees are free to speak out in the free marketplace of ideas and say "we're a big company, we have a big role in the economy, and it's important for the nation that we should keep making lots of money." And if that claim does have merit, then people will agree, of their own volition, that yes, "you're a big company and so you're important enough that our laws should cater to your interests."
And if that claim doesn't have merit, then people will say that no, "I want car makers to create more fuel-efficient vehicles so I don't have to pay as much to fill up my tank."
If a company's interests are more important than other people's interests, they're perfectly free to say that and then let people judge for themselves. But secretly financing Facebook ads without disclosing where they're coming from? Lobbying policymakers behind closed doors? That's not being open about your interests or honest about your motives. That's just using money to abuse the system.
What does it tell you about a company, that they don't think their ideas can win in the free marketplace of ideas? What does it tell you when they hide their activities from the public?
@Balrog99 @deltago That might actually mean something if these billionaires were making good or responsible decisions. Reality shows us otherwise.
People already have that say when they go and purchase a vehicle. The free marketplace allows them to choose which ever car they think is more beneficial to them: A gas guzzling SUV that can handle sleet and slushed covered roads during a snow storm, or a fuel-efficient sedan that can get them from point A-B easily and cheaply in a city.
What standard emissions does is take away a choice to consumers (making a even cheaper sedan for example). Now you can say having lower emissions is better for the country and why the bill was passed in the first place.
In the United States, states can follow either California’s emission standards or the federal level but cannot create their own happy middle. Cali’s gets stricter each year. Is it due to having the environmental best interest at heart, or a company’s like Tesla’s?
The regulations in question require auto manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. Auto manufacturers just wanted to slightly ease the regulations so it would be easier for them to meet those standards. Oil companies want no such regulations at all, because the very concept of fuel efficiency is bad for the fossil fuel industry: if cars require less fuel, oil companies will be able to sell less. Consumers, meanwhile, benefit from fuel efficiency because they want to spend less money, not more, at the gas station. This isn't even factoring in the environmental issue of pollution and greenhouse gases. I bought my car specifically because it was fuel efficient and I didn't want to burn lots of money on gas.
Incidentally, we're expected to have 300-mile-range electric vehicles by 2020 or 2025 that should cost the same or less than the gas-powered kind, with the drawback that charging it would take about 30 minutes. By that time, though, self-driving cars should be able to go get charged on their own while we're at home.
If something like minimum wage goes up (let’s make it easy) from 7.50 to living wage standards of $14, The company has a choice to either fire half of employees or raise it’s prices by 50% to just break even from that increase.
If they don’t think thier products can sell for 50% more due to supply and demand, if they choose raising their prices, they might lose enough customers that they are no longer profitable, making that employee they kept lose their job as well, so sadly, a company will always err on the side of caution and control their costs instead of relying on profits.
Even if they find a happy middle, raise prices by 10% while laying off 10% of their work force, someone is still losing their job.
Flat out raising minimum wage is not a good idea, even if it is considered noble.
I stated before, there should be two standards, living wage and minimum wage where a company pays fines/taxes if their living wages is lower than a percentage of thier profit.
While we’re back on Living Wage, I’ll also mention that if a company isn’t providing housing for their employees, they really have no control over this number. Perhaps it should be up to the politicans to make minimum wage, living wage again by making sure affordable housing, public transportation and services as well as basic food supplies are affordable to everyone.” Instead of passing the buck to employers and throwing them under the bus.
That is how many people work in the oil field industry in the United States. And these aren’t minimum wage jobs either as refinery workers make roughly $30 hr.
That’s a hefty bit of economic stability, one that can probably increase if regulations were eased is probably the argument oil companies are making to politicans whose job relies on a strong economy.
Once again, if this is a free marketplace of ideas, the notion of “I am going to buy a car that pollutes less even though it costs me more,” should be able to stand on its own without regulations now.
Ideally, that tax would be implemented while factoring in the ratio of a company's net worth to its number of employees who are American citizens. In other words, if you're a rich company but you don't spend that money creating jobs, the above tax would operate assuming you had X numbers of employees being paid $0 an hour. That would encourage hiring more workers as well as offering better pay, and also make it harder for companies to rely on illegal labor (you'd need to provide SSN's in order to avoid the tax).
So I don't think raising the minimum wage by itself is an ideal solution. But it's worth pointing out that the reason why employers pay minimum wage isn't because it's all they can afford. Employers pay minimum wage because they can, and because it's in their best interests to pay their workers as little as possible. There are plenty of jobs that are worth $15 an hour, but get paid substantially less for the sole reason that workers have little bargaining power and employers know they can get $15/hour labor for half the price.
If you cranked the minimum wage up $15 an hour and didn't take any extra measures to prevent layoffs, some jobs would indeed be lost. But let's not assume that every minimum wage job is truly worth nothing more than minimum wage in the eyes of employers. Lots of companies pay dirt wages because it maximizes profits; not because it's the only way they can "break even." Most workers are worth a lot more than they're getting paid.
Second, you're assuming that fuel-efficient cars necessarily cost more for the consumer. This is not the case. In the long run, they also save money because they require less gas.
Third, you're also confusing oil companies with auto manufacturers, and conflating the interests of both groups with consumers. Fuel efficiency standards are applied to auto manufacturers, who need to spend more money to design more fuel-efficient cars (innovation costs money), which indirectly hurts oil companies because the demand for oil will decrease when the average car requires less fuel. The auto manufacturer spends more on designing better cars, and so prices raise slightly so that they can off-set part (but not all) of the cost of the improved fuel efficiency.
As for the consumer, the end result is a slightly more expensive car that pollutes less and saves you money on gas. I'm a consumer and, at worst, this represents a wash for me. I actually already paid for a slightly more expensive vehicle that was more fuel-efficient because it would save me money in the long run (and it has).
- classical models assume perfect information without cost. In practice transaction costs are significant both for employees and employers and minimum wages tend to both reduce those costs directly and indirectly (as a result of less turnover of staff).
- classical models also assume prices are set at the equilibrium of supply and demand, that demand is price elastic and that an individual business has no ability to influence this equilibrium. In practice, in most industries, an increase in costs to all businesses can drive prices up across the board to compensate without a significant impact on demand (that's much less true where there is strong competition from imports and no tariff protection).
- cost differentials between employees tend to narrow, i.e. the gaps between wages paid to staff become narrower, reducing the apparent cost of the minimum wage.
- the increased purchasing power of low-paid staff promotes demand, which translates into more jobs.
Of course, while there may be no impact on jobs overall, there will certainly be some impact on the nature and distribution of jobs, which will create winners and losers.
This site refers to numerous studies of the impact of a minimum wage. This site refers to a major literature review and summarizes the changes in economists' views in recent years about the impact of a minimum wage.
New evidence of the minimum wage doing what it’s supposed to do: Help low-wage workers
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&ved=2ahUKEwibmKbiyZ3fAhWrT98KHfk2AOUQFjATegQIChAB&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/08/new-evidence-of-the-minimum-wage-doing-what-its-supposed-to-do-help-low-wage-workers/&usg=AOvVaw2pQp7RlqTl5MCMc5LIC1dK
(This links to an article in the Washington Post)
Minimum wage increases in six cities working as intended, Berkeley study of food-service jobs finds
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/economy/minimum-wage-increases-in-six-cities-working-as-intended-berkeley-study-of-food-service-jobs-finds/
“We find that they are working just as the policymakers and voters who enacted these policies intended,” said Sylvia Allegretto, co-author of the report and co-chair of Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics. “So far they are raising the earnings of low-wage workers without causing significant employment losses.”
Wage floors have continued climbing and are higher and more widespread now, with 10 major cities, seven states, and dozens of other local governments passing laws to boost minimum wages to between $12 and $15 an hour in the coming years, eventually covering more than a fifth of the U.S. workforce.
On average across the six cities studied, “a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage increases earnings in the food services industry between 1.3 and 2.5 percent,” the researchers found.
The Berkeley team said in a news release that their study “casts further doubt” on the 2017 findings of University of Washington researchers that Seattle’s minimum wage increase led to fewer hours and jobs for low-wage workers.
It kinda showcases where Capitalism went wrong and that is turning to publicly traded companies where short term gain out weighs long term stability.
@Grond0 I’ll take a look at those studies now. But there is a difference from a study to actually living it which I am currently doing in Ontario. I can tell you, fairly that: prices have risen in the last year and companies (or at least mine) have made cuts to staffing levels because of the huge increase in labour costs that was forced upon industries.
I also know that Seattle has/is doing a study on minimum wage in its municipality and that it has been coming back positive but that one is actually tiered as I previously suggested (but in a different way, large corporations have to pay more if they don’t offer Health Insurance), $11.50 for tip based industries.
In a small bubble of Seattle, (less than million people), larger companies like McDonald’s (having 15 stores) can eat that cost no problem, but if that goes Federally (14146 stores) they are going to have a problem.
Edit: I should also add that slowly increasing the minimum wage is ok, but doing a large jump like Ontario did is not. If your region is at 7.50 an hour and you think living wage should be $16, raising it to $16 right away is where these issues arise. Raising it slowly and controlled over a set amount of years allows businesses adjust properly to these new cost increases.
Edit2: I will also add that 7.50 minimum wage in the states, that hasn’t been raised since the 60s is stupidly low and does need to be raised just not all at once. I still believe it should be two tiered however between living wage and minimum wage.
These employees do not need a living wage salary. I expect/assume they are still living at home rent free and public transportation is covered from a student rate. I also assume they will get a better job, taking what they learnt working for my little smoothie shop with them wherever they go in life. The Supervisors on the other hand would probably get cost of living however but would also have more responsibility in helping me run the business. I would not expect a supervisor to take minimum wage, and if I want to limit their turn over, I’d treat them responsiblity.
That’s a small business who only has to answer to it’s customers and it’s employees.
Larger companies need to answer to someone else - shareholders, who expect to turn a profit and limit losses, even on the short term. They’re the ones who are making the millions of dollars and if they wanted, could probably force my little smoothie shop out of business with undercutting tactics and a focused advertising campaign. Larger corporations (like Walmart) like that should be held responsible and treat their employees better and share the wealth a bit more, but it shouldn’t be a blanket across the board, because not all businesses owners are multimillionaires.
I've done a very quick search, but haven't been able to find a comprehensive study on the impact on Ontario (probably because it's still too recent to give reliable results for an academic study). This piece refers to problems and losses in jobs along the same lines as you referred to. However, both this and this are more recent reviews and suggest that there has been no impact on jobs.
I suspect the difference in views mainly reflects the methodology. If you only look at low paid industries, you are likely to see some loss of jobs. However, that impact is counter-balanced by increases in other areas as a result of the overall economic stimulus provided by higher wages.
Even if there's no negative impact on jobs overall, I agree there are legitimate reasons for concern - for instance because you may well see fewer jobs for unskilled workers. My son is disabled and I think I've posted before about the differing views on the impact of minimum wage laws on the disabled. One view is that it's right to have a minimum wage to provide the same basic dignity for everyone. However, an opposing view is that the minimum wage reduces the chance of work for the disabled and hence robs some of them of the dignity associated with having some sort of job. It's a fair question and I can see both perspectives have merit ...
There is simply no way. College is far too expensive for a part time job to cover.
"These employees do not need a living wage salary. I expect/assume they are still living at home rent free and public transportation is covered from a student rate. I also assume they will get a better job, taking what they learnt working for my little smoothie shop with them wherever they go in life."
Yes they do. Everyone needs a living wage. Its how one is able to live. There are quite a few assumptions here that depends on ideal social conditions as well. Also, no company that currently employs full time gives a rat crap of someone's experience in part time retail.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Plus, on top of it, workers work hours keep rising, and it gets ridiculous when there is workplace pressure to *not* take time off and to work long overtimes without compensation. Corporate culture says you have to be so devoted to your job that your job is more important than your health or well-being. Sure, you may "officially" work 40 or 45 hours a week, but in actuality, you are putting in 90 to seem like a "good" employee. That's just exploitative. And who gets the payoff all of this extra work? Not you- your employer.
These were the same times where one could reasonable afford to buy their own home within 2 to 3 years of leaving school, rather than owning only a crippling amount of student debt.
Not by chance, this was also probably the last time minimum wage was also a living wage.
This happened at my last two steady, long-term jobs. I was never given any advance notice, had in at least one case gone out of my way to help the company at every opportunity for two years, had ZERO missed days in two years (even though I had personal issues management knew about that would have given me far more of an excuse to miss time than any other employee in the building, instead, I always planned my necessary time away around my earned time-off). No write-ups, no warnings. Just see ya later. So excuse me if I break out the world's smallest violin for businesses who can "ghost" an employee at any time and no one bats an eyelash. But when a worker does it, it's somehow considered bad manners.
There is no "power dynamic" between employers and employees. A dynamic would imply that one side (the employee) has any power to begin with at all. They don't. Our society, by and large, WORSHIPS the business owner in almost the same way acolytes of Ayn Rand do. People think her philosophy is some kind of fringe theory, but it's basically how the American labor market has functioned for decades. If you aren't one of the producers who owns a company, you are an expendable cog who has no more rights than a fire ant. Her novel "Atlas Shrugged" remains a core tenant of the conservative movement in this country, where everyone who is a business owner is a "productive individual" and everyone else is literally referred to as a "looter", "parasite" or "moocher". This is the kind of society we end up with when those at the top of the ladder are treated as demi-gods.
Even if you work 2 or 3 jobs, put all your extra time into the company and there are no better jobs, you're still at fault. If you just tried harder or did something- anything!- better, you would not be in this situation. Somehow. As if miracles happen.
Even Democrats are by NO means immune to this cult-like adoration of the business owner as a concept (especially the small business owner, if ever their was a class of people who gets their boots licked by politicians from all sides of the aisle, this is the one). But at least they make an ATTEMPT at trying to pass laws relating to worker's rights, unions, etc etc. Republicans give absolutely no shits about anyone who cashes a paycheck. They only care about the people who write them. I suppose that's why their current leader is a guy who has a history of not even paying the people who do work for him, or engaging in a fraudulent "university" preying on desperate people.
One semester of Ontario college can cost roughly $3000 - $4200. 11 per hour for 6 hour shifts 3.5 times per week = $231 per week means within 14 weeks you will pay off one semester of college. 24 weeks for a year of college. 48 weeks, or an entire year working part time 3-4, 6-hour shifts a week can pay for a full 2 year program.
I’ve done this twice and I am debt free because of it. Minimum wage in Ontario is now $14 so kids have more disposable income to put away if needed.
Once again, Canadian numbers but we’re a bunch of socialist up here so0o0o...
~
Someone mentioned inflation as well but higher wages actually affect inflation:
If you give it to the Rich, they are only going to squirrel it away and sit on it, which helps nobody. It creates no jobs. So how does giving money to the already rich help? It doesn't. Trickle down economics doesn't work. I have always preferred the "Bubble up" method myself. Give to the poor, let it bubble up to the rich.
Trump confides to friends he's concerned about impeachment
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-confides-friends-he-s-concerned-about-impeachment-n947296?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma&fbclid=IwAR1KPOyezfTEdaOffEAfosVbDRSnP7L-M0ucDusnMrdkP15BIFN0UIttBkMDespite public declarations that he's unconcerned, the president has told people close to him he's alarmed about the prospect of impeachment.
As well he should be. With all the stories coming out now, I'd be more than concerned if I was him, too. But I'm not him and I would never have done what he did, so I wouldn't be in this situation.
Trump's 10 'Terrorists': The evolution of a statistic
https://www.apnews.com/50620e9177c645a7ab36de12a154e740?fbclid=IwAR2a-iuqBgftk_tLs9c3AMJUtfRITR7rsvVMzKK3Rk9T1VIfCQPpd_2A7kQIt was brought into being by Mike Pence, who was just making it up out of whole cloth.
Donald Trump’s worst fear confirmed: House Dems plan to pounce on president’s cash
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/donald-trumps-worst-fear-confirmed-house-dems-plan-pounce-presidents-cash/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3PfbrPVAzkXE3TBwDRbxGpjGeEkfS1z8m_NMkAYpDZuiEpXBmw6-sXDLkWhich is further informed with this headline:
Senate votes to overturn Trump donor disclosure rule
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/12/senate-democrats-overturn-trump-donor-disclosure-1057535?fbclid=IwAR1G9Gn1jWjLPpoU8Ihcbc4oCdo4hTLAxv60m39vrPF3ynBgqv2hclotOM8The Senate passed legislation Wednesday to reverse a Trump administration policy limiting donor disclosure requirements for political nonprofits in a rare rebuke to the White House.
And this...
Trump inauguration spending reportedly under criminal investigation by federal prosecutors
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/12/13/trump-inauguration-spending-under-criminal-investigation-by-federal-prosecutors-dow-jones.html?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3aJI-6cT2qBhH_tjcA3sLzyVR9QQW2lJLa0Zy-eQkyW4aKVjfLxxRHXswManhattan-based federal prosecutors are investigating whether some of the $107 million in donations to then President-elect Donald Trump's inaugural committee were misspent, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The criminal probe is also looking into whether some of the committee's top spenders traded money for access to the incoming Trump administration, as well as "policy concessions or to influence official administration positions," sources tell the Journal.
And this all come out of Documents given into evidence by Michael Cohen.
Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-was-room-during-hush-money-discussions-nbc-news-confirms-n947536?fbclid=IwAR3XEFwM2dCn_hFdFxXRSHuLOfQg5Hty3xnZ-USBTzJSJzuLAYoB1uGpfzAWell, there you go. Now he can't claim he didn't know about the activities the Nation Enquirer was doing on his behalf.
"A source confirmed to NBC News that Trump was the "other member of the campaign" present when Michael Cohen and David Pecker agreed to silence women."
Ivanka Trump reportedly advocated for a tax break she and Jared Kushner could profit from
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/12/18137834/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump-opportunity-zone?fbclid=IwAR0rzpnSkCJ6tHVrWsG9q376BaPWe6zCBBdHZ77z664WjXm9eyzi6HMDmL8The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?
And more woes for President Orange and his spray tan.
Can the President Be Indicted? A Long-Hidden Legal Memo Says Yes
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR25dH2sXmfLxftYNiVC5luhUG3YJcmJN7ZglgbkXy9wk5bBif2KmRi8hC0A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starr’s independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton sheds fresh light on a constitutional puzzle that is taking on mounting significance amid the Trump-Russia inquiry: Can a sitting president be indicted?
The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
Trump's former friends flip as he faces a new reality
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/trump-michael-cohen-flynn-dirty-deeds-peanuts-russia/index.html?no-st=1544733669As the old joke goes, "He had friends?!?"
The schemes employed to get President Donald Trump into the Oval Office are closing in on him, and he's frustrated at his predicament.
His former fixer has now been sentenced to prison and his tabloid friend's company landed an immunity deal. Trump separately admitted that his campaign did have interactions with Russians, which, even if it is the "peanut stuff" he claims, is an important shift from the blanket denials he had made previously.
The threads -- hush money for claims of affairs and interactions with Russians -- are becoming impossible to keep separate. But the pattern is clear: Schemes Trump repeatedly denied were hatched to help him get elected keep being proved true, and former friends and members of his inner circle keep heading to jail.
So, of course:
Trump cancels White House Christmas party for the press
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-cancels-white-house-christmas-party-for-the-press?fbclid=IwAR3nQnoPJWTcKCEctAhBNC-kdasO6ZNn9jcINxOTv6O10gUnOX3OX-HIKK0Instead, he's heading down to Mar-a-Lago for a 16 day party.
DONALD TRUMP WILL SPEND 16 DAYS AT MAR-A-LAGO DURING HOLIDAYS, WHILE THOUSANDS OF TROOPS REMAIN AT BORDER
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-will-spend-16-days-mar-lago-during-holidays-while-thousands-1257860And, as he says this:
Trump: ‘I am proud to shut down the government’ if I don’t get my wall
https://shareblue.com/trump-i-am-proud-to-shut-down-the-government-if-i-dont-get-my-wall/?fbclid=IwAR0EGy66oqaSmfK6uEIJA7yGS9_aA-lRqCGirlCYj9vhZeLmR719En80gScHe may not get the chance to!
And Republicans lost a State Senator in Kansas:
Kansas Republican State Senator Barbara Bollier leaves party, becomes a Democrat
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/12/1818651/-Kansas-Republican-State-Senator-Barbara-Bollier-leaves-party-becomes-a-Democrat?detail=emaildkre&fbclid=IwAR0en7fu-VmBFLf2V11Kb9LLx0fmCV5WSJvVuRJaTqTKauYVvSc7U6DT8TMCiting “frustrations that have been ongoing for nine years,” Bollier said Wednesday that the inclusion of anti-transgender language in the party platform had proved a breaking point for her.
“Morally, the party is not going where my compass resides,” Bollier said. “I’m looking forward to being in a party that represents the ideals that I do, including Medicaid expansion and funding our K-12 schools.”
Something to help you understand how all this Trump news fits together..
Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/trump-administration-conflicts/?fbclid=IwAR3PiOoEg58JBzP2fmNViaor8865VSNGyTJoJNNhBDoThADyaqt4qW4GK5sFinally, some heartwarming news:
The Scientist Wikipedia Rejected Becomes the First Woman to Win A Nobel Prize in Physics in 55 Years
https://www.amightygirl.com/blog?p=20783&fbclid=IwAR1FgSkkdG2rfXDX0-yto-nyp004SYFE-svNsqVzH9Tm2S1toiORS9CizZ4Wikipedia's loss, America's (and Science's) gain...
Tuition
Tuition is what colleges charge for the instruction they provide. Colleges charge tuition by the units that make up an academic year, such as a semester or quarter. Tuition at public colleges is often a bargain for state residents, but not for out-of-staters, who often pay double the tuition of residents.
Tuition can vary by major. Students in the sciences, engineering, computing, premed programs, and the fine arts often pay more. For example, at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, students enrolled in the College of Engineering pay up to $5,000 more in tuition than students pursuing other majors.
Fees
Colleges charge fees for services. These fees may include the library, campus transportation, student government, and athletic facilities.
Colleges often report a combined tuition and fees figure. According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2017–2018 school year was $34,740 at private colleges, $9,970 for state residents at public colleges, and $25,620 for out-of-state residents attending public universities.
Housing and Meals
The cost of "room and board" depends on the campus housing and food plans you choose. The College Board reports that the average cost of room and board in 2017–2018 ranged from $10,800 at four-year public schools to $12,210 at private schools. Colleges also provide room and board estimates for living off campus based on typical student costs.
Books and School Supplies
Most colleges estimate the average costs for required learning materials. Some colleges even include the cost of a computer and computer accessories. The College Board reports the average cost for books and supplies for the 2017–2018 school year was $1,250 at public colleges and $1,220 at private colleges.
Personal and Transportation Expenses
Colleges may estimate some expenses they don't bill you for. These include local transportation, clothing, personal items, entertainment, etc. The College Board reports that expenses in this category for 2017–2018 ran from $2,730 at private colleges to $3,270 at public universities.
Even a two-year degree can put you thousands of dollars in debt right off the bat, and a four-year degree, especially at a more prestigious school, can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Even if you were working full-time (while simultaneously taking classes!), a minimum wage salary would only net you $15,000 in one year, and that's not factoring in all of your living costs.
For my hometown of San Antonio, a quick stop at texasrealitycheck.com suggests that you could get by on $11,000 a year if you lived with your parents and had them pay for all utilities, used public transportation, got a 4-year degree from a public college (this is assuming you got a student loan), didn't plan on having any kids, and spent zero dollars on anything you did not need to survive (you wouldn't even get haircuts). If you want to sustain a middle-class lifestyle, however, and have a couple of kids, you'd be looking at over $100,000 a year. Two parents could split that to 50 grand a year if they both worked full-time.
It kinda depends on what you define as a minimum standard for living. Minimum wage can keep you alive, but in my hometown, you're not necessarily going to be able to afford more expensive stuff like haircuts or children unless you're making far, far more than minimum wage.
2.6 million people work for minimum wage or below minimum wage, and I'm pretty sure not all of them are getting their parents to pay for rent and utilities.