National Living Wage comes into force

[Elheru Aran]

Your turn to steal my post, Fenix...

And the "buying power" people get from taxpayer money usually goes to fucking WalMart anyways because the poorer you are the more likely you are to have to shop there because their prices in those areas are usually the best. They benefit both ways. So, my heart is really bleeding for them.

This ^ was pretty much what I was getting at.

The primary problem I do have with the whole 'living wage' thing is that, yeah, I can see a lot of asshole corporations straight-up firing a large percentage of their employees simply so they don't have to pay them that much, especially in right-to-work states. Small businesses might also suffer-- a lot of those run on a shoestring as it is and wouldn't be able to afford keeping all their employees on if they suddenly have to pay close to twice as much (this is assuming we're talking about increasing the minimum wage to like $14-15/hr).

Realistically though, the fact of the matter is that superstores like Walmart and Home Depot *require* a lot of hands to get the job done. My store last night had a small amount of freight, but it still took ~15 people most of the night to get it all squared away. And that's without having to make sales, service customers, deal with paperwork/training, and maintaining the various departments. They might fire a lot of people to start with, but customers will very quickly start complaining about not having enough service, and employees will be exhausted from having to do a lot of extra work, and management will be worn out from having to deal with increased customer-service and staffing issues. They're going to have to suck it up, one way or the other, because if they start pulling absurd moves like closing entire stores in protest, business will go elsewhere and make someone else a lot of money.

[K. A. Pital]

Why are your corporations so assholish? A lot of Northern / Western Europe has high minimum wages (some of the best in the world, in fact, if places like Denmark and Luxembourg are to be considered) and they don't get mass firings just because of that. In fact the German minimum wage did not exist until very recently, but its implementation did not cause mass firings. On the contrary, I would say the situation for many unprotected workers has improved.

I guess it's a different world there over the ocean, but...

[Simon_Jester]

There's not much evidence that minimum wage increases would result in mass firings. However, American corporations have the advantage of about one and a half out of the two American political parties being utterly meretricious and willing to believe just about anything they say about what is 'good for the economy.'

So Wal-Mart can pretend that if it weren't able to pay its employees a pittance, it would go out of business or spitefully close its stores... when in reality, they'd have to adapt in other ways.

[TheFeniX]

Your turn to steal my post, Fenix...

Was bound to happen.

Why are your corporations so assholish? A lot of Northern / Western Europe has high minimum wages (some of the best in the world, in fact, if places like Denmark and Luxembourg are to be considered) and they don't get mass firings just because of that. In fact the German minimum wage did not exist until very recently, but its implementation did not cause mass firings. On the contrary, I would say the situation for many unprotected workers has improved.

Way above my paygrade, so I'll just spitball and someone can tear it apart.

Been this way for well over 100 years here. I think a lot of it has to do with just how much money you can make at the top. At that point, money becomes an abstract concept and you're so walled off from the masses, you have no idea what poverty actually is. Doesn't help you have business friendly politicians who are even more out of touch. They consider "a rough year" to be NOT taking the entire family out on a hugely expensive vacation.

I recall one senator talking about how it was rough to live on his $500-whatever-thousand take-home because after investing in his business, paying loans and bills, he only had $200k left-over. That's $200k in spending cash. Only having $200k free-floating money to "live on" is "rough." He understands what it is to be poor because he has so little money to blow on hookers and cocaine! That an elected official could regurgitate liquid shit with a straight face is some legendary levels of "out of touch."

Really though: money. Money at the expense of everything else. It doesn't matter that you could build a house out of stacks of $1,000 bills. You can never make or have enough money.

And the poor (and middle class to an extent) really have no voice. The poor have neither the time nor the money to effectively campaign for themselves. The Middle Class is shrinking and working more hours for less, so they have even less time and money to fight. In fact, there's a large group of conservative poor essentially fighting against themselves by electing politicians who will fuck them at every opportunity (but they won't take your guns or let them gays marry). Really though, Democrats aren't really any better for economics, just less bat-shit crazy about social issues... provided they don't have to burn any political capital to get legislation passed.

But at least we ain't no filthy commies!: AMERICA, FUCK YEA!

[K. A. Pital]

I recall one senator talking about how it was rough to live on his $500-whatever-thousand take-home because after investing in his business, paying loans and bills, he only had $200k left-over. That's $200k in spending cash. ... That an elected official could regurgitate liquid shit with a straight face is some legendary levels of "out of touch."

What. The. Fuk. Sorry, is that a real story? Is that a real politican you are talking about? WTF WTF WTF?

And that's when we have people looking to "call out" Bernie Sanders on being a hypocrite or something on something something?

[TheFeniX]

I recall one senator talking about how it was rough to live on his $500-whatever-thousand take-home because after investing in his business, paying loans and bills, he only had $200k left-over. That's $200k in spending cash. ... That an elected official could regurgitate liquid shit with a straight face is some legendary levels of "out of touch."

What. The. Fuk. Sorry, is that a real story? Is that a real politican you are talking about? WTF WTF WTF?

And that's when we have people looking to "call out" Bernie Sanders on being a hypocrite or something on something something?

It's hard to actually gauge where the $600k actually sits. It's it left over after ALL expenses, including personal? He says "$400k after feeding my family." Also, he's in the House, not the Senate. I was wrong on that. That said, it doesn't seem to take into account what he makes as a Congressman, which I think is in the $150k range.

[Elheru Aran]

I have to say there are days when I think Stas is on to something with his popular-revolt notion...

[/line]

No, seriously, though. It's blatantly obvious that the rot is deeply institutionalized. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it at this point. Quickly, that is. An overhaul could be done within the system... very slowly... and with extreme effort by enough people who actually care seriously enough to see some change done. Unfortunately, odds are good that with the amount of time it takes, by the time you get people into a position of power who are of your school of thought, the damage has been done to them already and the status quo isn't going to change.

Take mister Senator above, 400K after feeding his family, 150Kish Congressman pay. The great majority of the Congressmen and upper level politicians are going to be making wads of money, to the point where scarcity isn't something they routinely face. They have no incentive and no interest in making things right for the peons, who likely don't vote anyway because they can't get the goddamn day off.

The conflict over minimum wage is only part of the problem. I think anybody reasonable can recognize that it's syptomatic of the deeper and more enduring rot in the American way of life as it currently exists.

[TheFeniX]

I have to say there are days when I think Stas is on to something with his popular-revolt notion...

Once again, paygrade, above, etc, etc. Just the ramblings of some redneck.

The U.S. had some good social program come out of the depression. After WW2, we were riding high. Undamaged infastructure, America Light with Japan, wealth of untapped resources, oil boon. We've had the means to pay our workers more, protect them, etc. We'd been riding that shit forever. Pretty much gone now and we're competing with other global economies. Economies that don't mind working employees to death to make us iPads for under $1000.

So, we're in a decline, but America IS STILL GREAT! Just work hard and you'll have everything. Shit was never really true, but it's really false now. Kids are tired of hearing baby boomers talk about a world that doesn't exist anymore. Advantages they had that are gone and now "kids just lazy. You want more money, work more. No one will hire you? Bullshit, you're just lazy. Fuck you."

Obama was supposed to fix it all. I'm not going into why he didn't, but he didn't (ZOMG, REALLY? One man couldn't fix this broken shit-heap?). People are mad. Real mad. Mad enough that even moderates could look at someone like Trump (who seems to want to burn the whole thing down, who is a.... whatever, we all know what he is) and Clinton (who is so deep inside the system she might as well be a ball of iron creating a magnetic field, or something... I'm not a science guy):

and saying "Fuck it, let it burn. Let it burn and cover it with a bad toupee."

[ray245]

I have to say there are days when I think Stas is on to something with his popular-revolt notion...

[/line]

No, seriously, though. It's blatantly obvious that the rot is deeply institutionalized. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it at this point. Quickly, that is. An overhaul could be done within the system... very slowly... and with extreme effort by enough people who actually care seriously enough to see some change done. Unfortunately, odds are good that with the amount of time it takes, by the time you get people into a position of power who are of your school of thought, the damage has been done to them already and the status quo isn't going to change.

Take mister Senator above, 400K after feeding his family, 150Kish Congressman pay. The great majority of the Congressmen and upper level politicians are going to be making wads of money, to the point where scarcity isn't something they routinely face. They have no incentive and no interest in making things right for the peons, who likely don't vote anyway because they can't get the goddamn day off.

The conflict over minimum wage is only part of the problem. I think anybody reasonable can recognize that it's syptomatic of the deeper and more enduring rot in the American way of life as it currently exists.

Part of this has to do with wealth and lifestyle choice of people, regardless of how much they are earning. Wealth isn't merely about how much you have, but how much you have in relations to your peers. Being unable to afford a lifestyle similar to your peers in social hierarchy will negatively affect their perception of you.

We live in a society where wealth equates to power. We rate people by their ability to accumulate wealth.

[Simon_Jester]

I recall one senator talking about how it was rough to live on his $500-whatever-thousand take-home because after investing in his business, paying loans and bills, he only had $200k left-over. That's $200k in spending cash. ... That an elected official could regurgitate liquid shit with a straight face is some legendary levels of "out of touch."

What. The. Fuk. Sorry, is that a real story? Is that a real politican you are talking about? WTF WTF WTF?

And that's when we have people looking to "call out" Bernie Sanders on being a hypocrite or something on something something?

Exactly.

Which is part, though far from all, of how we got to this place in the first place.

Another problem we have is that for decades the US defined itself in opposition to global communism. Almost everyone educated in American schools hears "communism" and reflexively thinks "bad idea." People who are otherwise utterly ignorant of geopolitics and history can lecture you on gulags, show trials, and so forth.

Therefore, the spectrum of 'safe places to stand' in American politics... Well. On the right it runs all the way out to fascism and radical variants of anarcho-capitalism. And the Republican Party has been encouraging this with what amounts to a "no enemies to the right" stance.

Meanwhile, the safe spectrum on the American left ends abruptly in an enormous cliff at the first point where someone can look at the proposed policy and say... "that's communism."
___________________________

This dynamic has gotten a bit weaker (or Sanders would never have been able to mount a credible presidential bid) because the Cold War era propaganda machine relaxed after 1989. Americans born after 1980 or so are less likely to have that intense knee-jerk fear of communism (sharpened by all the nuclear missiles we knew you were pointing at us), and so are more capable of recognizing how "that's communism" has been used very cynically by right-wing politicians to shift the Overton window to the right.

[His Divine Shadow]

I have to say there are days when I think Stas is on to something with his popular-revolt notion...

Once again, paygrade, above, etc, etc. Just the ramblings of some redneck.

The U.S. had some good social program come out of the depression. After WW2, we were riding high. Undamaged infastructure, America Light with Japan, wealth of untapped resources, oil boon. We've had the means to pay our workers more, protect them, etc. We'd been riding that shit forever. Pretty much gone now and we're competing with other global economies. Economies that don't mind working employees to death to make us iPads for under $1000.

Yeah but there are things like tariffs and trade deals and such that can prevent that. Globalization isn't an all or nothing deal. I've noticed a lot of people say globalization can't be stopped, as if it's an all or nothing deal and the alternative is living like north korea. The market fundamentalists have been keen to spin it like that for a good while now. But for most of the 20th century we did not have all unlimited globalization, except before WW1 (afterwards we did not) and we didn't really get there again until the 1990s. So the road to globalization isn't an unstoppable path with one end.

Unless something changes we're in for a global race to the bottom and misery for all, which will in turn result in violence and more misery. There's a really good book that came out by national economist Christer Lindholm in Finland called the 5 myths of market fundamentalists. It really puts the hammer on the nail in a concise way that is easy for anyone to understand. I don't think it's available in english

[K. A. Pital]

To the market fundies globalization is anyway just a useful tool to attack worker's rights both at home and abroad - nothing more. So pity the fool who buys their lies.

[ray245]

Although without globalisation, I'm not sure China could've expanded its economy as quickly as it did.

[TheFeniX]

Yeah but there are things like tariffs and trade deals and such that can prevent that. Globalization isn't an all or nothing deal. I've noticed a lot of people say globalization can't be stopped, as if it's an all or nothing deal and the alternative is living like north korea. The market fundamentalists have been keen to spin it like that for a good while now. But for most of the 20th century we did not have all unlimited globalization, except before WW1 (afterwards we did not) and we didn't really get there again until the 1990s. So the road to globalization isn't an unstoppable path with one end.

Agreed: my stab wasn't at globalization itself. More that, we're competing with massive economies that don't consider human rights a priority. We had a leg-up for decades and that's gone. There has to be intervention to protect non-mulitbillionares from this.

Removing the human element from the equation: America can't afford to treat it's workers like they do in 3rd world-nations because the protections and safety nets we have mean we can't afford it. Someone needs to pickup the tab, but companies like WalMart think there's little value in labor even though they benefit from it immensely. WalMart hires a lot of illegal workers. But the US government doesn't mind making money off essentially slave labor while the taxpayer picks up the tab and a private corporation pockets whatever profits they can.

Remember when Private Prisons were confined to shit like Dystopian Cyberpunk? Guess not a lot of people in Government read "nerd shit."