In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 02 2014 04:42 hunts wrote: After reading the article on the seattle minimum wage, I can't tell if they just passed this without allowing the people to vote on it, or if this is the proposal that will be up for vote. I will be quite sad if they pushed this through without giving the opposing voice of reason a chance.
How are they not giving them a chance to voice their opinion? Has free speech been suspended? I heard something about a concert sponsored by the opponents. Do you think the people should have to vote on everything rather than elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf?
I said that because the article implied this already passed and was going into effect without giving the people a chance to vote, however it appears that is not the case. Not giving them a chance to voice their opinion, would be what I originally thought had happened, which is only having this discussed between the city council and whatever other representatives and then enacting it without a public vote. Also the politicians are not motivated by doing the right thing, but by going along with whatever makes them money. If they feel they will be reelected and thus continue getting paid by being in favor of this, they will do what they can to pass it regardless of whether or not they think it is a good idea. Something as big as a nearly 60% minimum wage increase is something that will effect the entire local economy, and not just those making minimum wage, and I believe it is a big enough issue that it deserves a real vote.
The people have shown overwhelming support for raising the minimum wage already...
Politicians were the only ones really standing in the way of the will of the people making it happen anyway. It's Republicans who want to get reelected that are standing in the way of the will of the people as much if not more so than Democrats 'pandering' to them.
But based on your description thus far it doesn't seem you have much knowledge to support your belief that this will cause 'suffering'?
Other than economic knowledge, while the people supporting this have absolutely no knowledge, and believe if the minimum wage is raised the world will turn into sunshine and faeries and they will get a pet unicorn, no. But don't let such small things as economics or reality get in the way of raising the cost of living err minimum wage, while also forcing labor cuts in the minimum wage area.
If you're looking for a field that'll give you objective evidence to back up your political beliefs and show that yours is the only rational viewpoint then you're going to have to keep looking, your "economic knowledge" isn't going to cut it. Maybe try religion?
On May 02 2014 04:42 hunts wrote: After reading the article on the seattle minimum wage, I can't tell if they just passed this without allowing the people to vote on it, or if this is the proposal that will be up for vote. I will be quite sad if they pushed this through without giving the opposing voice of reason a chance.
How are they not giving them a chance to voice their opinion? Has free speech been suspended? I heard something about a concert sponsored by the opponents. Do you think the people should have to vote on everything rather than elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf?
I said that because the article implied this already passed and was going into effect without giving the people a chance to vote, however it appears that is not the case. Not giving them a chance to voice their opinion, would be what I originally thought had happened, which is only having this discussed between the city council and whatever other representatives and then enacting it without a public vote. Also the politicians are not motivated by doing the right thing, but by going along with whatever makes them money. If they feel they will be reelected and thus continue getting paid by being in favor of this, they will do what they can to pass it regardless of whether or not they think it is a good idea. Something as big as a nearly 60% minimum wage increase is something that will effect the entire local economy, and not just those making minimum wage, and I believe it is a big enough issue that it deserves a real vote.
The people have shown overwhelming support for raising the minimum wage already...
Politicians were the only ones really standing in the way of the will of the people making it happen anyway. It's Republicans who want to get reelected that are standing in the way of the will of the people as much if not more so than Democrats 'pandering' to them.
But based on your description thus far it doesn't seem you have much knowledge to support your belief that this will cause 'suffering'?
Other than economic knowledge, while the people supporting this have absolutely no knowledge, and believe if the minimum wage is raised the world will turn into sunshine and faeries and they will get a pet unicorn, no. But don't let such small things as economics or reality get in the way of raising the cost of living err minimum wage, while also forcing labor cuts in the minimum wage area.
Oh really...."Economic knowledge" you say? Force is a bit of a strong word but ok. I'm not saying those things wont happen, but do you have any idea how big or small they would be?
If you think you do, do you mind citing some sort of evidence of your belief in available data?
Otherwise it just kind of comes off as talking out of your ass. Your perception on support of the minimum wage already points that way..?
I'm atheist but nice try kwark. Also business and restaurant owners have said they would need to cut labor to deal with the $15/hour minimum wage, while I've yet to see anyone here link any proof that states that increasing the minimum wage by such a drastic amount (roughly 60%) will benefit rather than hurt the economy. But of course it's easier to demand proof than provide any, so that's what I see many people here do.
On May 02 2014 05:39 hunts wrote: I'm atheist but nice try kwark. Also business and restaurant owners have said they would need to cut labor to deal with the $15/hour minimum wage, while I've yet to see anyone here link any proof that states that increasing the minimum wage by such a drastic amount (roughly 60%) will benefit rather than hurt the economy. But of course it's easier to demand proof than provide any, so that's what I see many people here do.
Economics is not a field that provides many readily testable theories nor universally accepted evidence to support the conclusions of individual economists. Going "I understand economics whereas literally every person opposing me on this does not" only betrays a complete lack of understanding of economics, which is not a unified field with objective conclusions, and a total inability to see the point of view of the other side, or even recognise that their genuinely held beliefs might have any intellectual weight.
That was my point about religion. Your post could be summed up as "stone the unbelievers, my invisible hand is the only true hand". It's worthless. Absolutely worthless.
people who make public pronouncements of work cutting are doing so as a political gesture/lobbying. it'll probably lead to more undocumented black market labor but again, a higher legal minimum wage would probably help those working under the minimum.
If creating the strongest economy means you have people working full-time yet not being able to afford their basic necessities, then what good is your economy? How is it the strongest? You have the highest GDP and accumulation of wealth of any other country, yet over half your population lives like shit -- yeah, great economy, bro.
I don't buy the minimum wage doomsaying. Seattle may be over-compensating a bit too hard, but on a federal level, compared to what inflation has done, it's ridiculous to think a small increase in minimum wage wouldn't make a lot of people's lives better (the only thing that really matters) AND help the economy. It would inject an incredible amount of day-to-day spending. There'd be trade-offs, I'm sure, but it's really a stretch to imagine that giving minimum-wage earners more money to spend is going to have an overall negative impact.
I'm not sure why it's even a partisan issue, other than people having to constantly cling to ideological platitudes. Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage. It's more and more obvious that it really is a zero sum game for some people. Our country has had a minimum wage and progressive income tax brackets for quite some time, throughout our best years.
Does the right-wing even admit that there is a point anymore, where platitudes don't work? Zero taxes, zero minimum wage, is that the society they want? Is that even a society at all anymore? Or is society itself, the idea of collectively-reasoned rules we all abide by, offensive to them, an affront to "freedom" (the freedom to be make a fortune out of abusing others, in the case of minimum wage)?
On May 02 2014 05:39 hunts wrote: I'm atheist but nice try kwark. Also business and restaurant owners have said they would need to cut labor to deal with the $15/hour minimum wage, while I've yet to see anyone here link any proof that states that increasing the minimum wage by such a drastic amount (roughly 60%) will benefit rather than hurt the economy. But of course it's easier to demand proof than provide any, so that's what I see many people here do.
You just haven't read much of the thread, or at least didn't pay attention to it. The effect of the minimum wage increase, like has been pointed out, is not absolute. But when you look into evidence beyond 'some business and restaurant owners say' you see that some of the actual evidence of inflation or 'cost of living' puts it at around 0.03% .1% per 10% pay increase respectively.
So before moving onto the benefits we can first dismantle your delusion of 'suffering'
If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 10-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 0.1 percent.
Keep in mind they don't need to take only one of at least 3 clearly distinct actions in order to mitigate the impact.
A price increase of this size amounts to marking up a $100 price tag to $100.10.
So 60% would be about 6 times that or marking up a $100 price tag to $100.60. The suffering! **gasp**
It appears it is you hunts who has entered the arena unarmed? People not posting supporting evidence was merely them futilely trying to allow you arm yourself. (It's not as much fun destroying contending with an unarmed argument)
I think the benefits of having more money in more pockets are pretty self evident so I don't think you are actually challenging that right?
On May 02 2014 06:31 Leporello wrote: If creating the strongest economy means you have people working full-time yet not being able to afford their basic necessities, then what good is your economy? How is it the strongest? You have the highest GDP and accumulation of wealth of any other country, yet over half your population lives like shit -- yeah, great economy, bro.
I don't buy the minimum wage doomsaying. Seattle may be over-compensating a bit too hard, but on a federal level, compared to what inflation has done, it's ridiculous to think a small increase in minimum wage wouldn't make a lot of people's lives better (the only thing that really matters) AND help the economy. It would inject an incredible amount of day-to-day spending. There'd be trade-offs, I'm sure, but it's really a stretch to imagine that giving minimum-wage earners more money to spend is going to have an overall negative impact.
I'm not sure why it's even a partisan issue, other than people having to constantly cling to ideological platitudes. Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage. It's more and more obvious that it really is a zero sum game for some people. Our country has had a minimum wage and progressive income tax brackets for quite some time, throughout our best years.
Does the right-wing even admit that there is a point anymore, where platitudes don't work? Zero taxes, zero minimum wage, is that the society they want? Is that even a society at all anymore? Or is society itself, the idea of collectively-reasoned rules we all abide by, offensive to them, an affront to "freedom" (the freedom to be make a fortune out of abusing others, in the case of minimum wage)?
que?
Edit: Also, day to day spending (retail sales, auto sales, etc) has been strong.
Edit 2: And the right has its own preferred ways of helping the poor and isn't always against taxes.
On May 02 2014 06:31 Leporello wrote: If creating the strongest economy means you have people working full-time yet not being able to afford their basic necessities, then what good is your economy? How is it the strongest? You have the highest GDP and accumulation of wealth of any other country, yet over half your population lives like shit -- yeah, great economy, bro.
I don't buy the minimum wage doomsaying. Seattle may be over-compensating a bit too hard, but on a federal level, compared to what inflation has done, it's ridiculous to think a small increase in minimum wage wouldn't make a lot of people's lives better (the only thing that really matters) AND help the economy. It would inject an incredible amount of day-to-day spending. There'd be trade-offs, I'm sure, but it's really a stretch to imagine that giving minimum-wage earners more money to spend is going to have an overall negative impact.
I'm not sure why it's even a partisan issue, other than people having to constantly cling to ideological platitudes. Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage. It's more and more obvious that it really is a zero sum game for some people. Our country has had a minimum wage and progressive income tax brackets for quite some time, throughout our best years.
Does the right-wing even admit that there is a point anymore, where platitudes don't work? Zero taxes, zero minimum wage, is that the society they want? Is that even a society at all anymore? Or is society itself, the idea of collectively-reasoned rules we all abide by, offensive to them, an affront to "freedom" (the freedom to be make a fortune out of abusing others, in the case of minimum wage)?
I really don't see where you're going here. Are we talking a full time worker and single bread-winner needing to support a family? Are you presupposing a society where there isn't need-based government assistance, in food programs, housing, cash subsidies?
Frankly, your straw men (1)Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage (2)Cling to ideological platitudes (3)We hate "collectively-reasoned" rules (4)We view rules as an affront to freedom
make your point rather dim. You can stand on your soap box and decry ideological platitudes all day, but if the only thing you know of your opposition is what straw men you choose to characterize him by, you're just another preacher with a message of hellfire.
Seattle will raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour over the coming years under a deal brokered by Mayor Ed Murray and blessed by labor and business groups alike, city leaders announced Thursday afternoon.
The new pay floor will phase in at different speeds for businesses of different sizes, but all employers will have to meet the $15 minimum wage by the end of the decade. Businesses with more than 500 employees nationwide will have a three-year phase-in period, while smaller employers get five years to ratchet up their payscales.
After reaching $15 an hour, the city’s minimum wage will automatically climb by 2.4 percent each year regardless of the rate of inflation. Even among states with relatively strong minimum wage laws, automatic increases are uncommon. Thursday’s deal will make Seattle the national leader on municipal minimum wage laws. Washington currently has the highest pay floor of any state at $9.32 per hour.
The deal was a long time coming, with Murray first indicating he wanted to establish a $15 floor back in September during the mayoral campaign. Murray created the 24-member advisory group that crafted the compromise package back in December, and the group of local business owners, restaurateurs, and labor leaders has been grinding toward an agreement for the past four months.
Approval from restaurant owners is especially noteworthy given the deal’s provisions for tipped workers. Tips can only be counted toward worker minimum pay for the next five years. After that, the separate minimum hourly pay rates for tipped and non-tipped workers will disappear, and all employees citywide will have to be paid $15 hourly or more.
Time for another experiment, hopefully economists can gather a lot of data from this policy. Best to keep these bills at the state level, but trying something at the municipal level is even better.
Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills.
Did we really need a study to make findings on the relationship between zoning and property values? People who live live in residential areas zoned next to industrial parks are lower on the social ladder? Quick, fund a study telling me what kind of people I can expect to find living in downtown high rise condos!
Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills.
On May 02 2014 08:00 Wolfstan wrote: Did we really need a study to make findings on the relationship between zoning and property values? People who live live in residential areas zoned next to industrial parks are lower on the social ladder? Quick, fund a study telling me what kind of people I can expect to find living in downtown high rise condos!
No I think just assuming things based on gut feelings is superior to quantifying things based on objective data.
On May 02 2014 08:00 Wolfstan wrote: Did we really need a study to make findings on the relationship between zoning and property values? People who live live in residential areas zoned next to industrial parks are lower on the social ladder? Quick, fund a study telling me what kind of people I can expect to find living in downtown high rise condos!
No I think just assuming things based on gut feelings is superior to quantifying things based on objective data.
On May 02 2014 08:00 Wolfstan wrote: Did we really need a study to make findings on the relationship between zoning and property values? People who live live in residential areas zoned next to industrial parks are lower on the social ladder? Quick, fund a study telling me what kind of people I can expect to find living in downtown high rise condos!
No I think just assuming things based on gut feelings is superior to quantifying things based on objective data.
I don't think there's any real science there. They pulled data that already existed and put it into a report to drive a political agenda. Lobbying basically.
Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills.
"environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day.
Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities.
Hooray! More insight from Jonny 'OneTwo-line'
The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. It also goes onto explain how they are also not being fully informed of the dangers they are being subjected too.
But I know it's no big deal right Jonny, because it has a racial component? Which is largely a result of various other factors that I sincerely doubt you accept (but don't know), so that's all I'll say about that. If you want to write the racial component off as insignificant it really doesn't impact the more important aspect of vulnerable people being exploited.
Can't say I'm surprised anymore though by insights like yours and Wolfstan, considering you probably didn't bother reading past the quote you pulled from the 2nd paragraph and the perspective Wolfstan is coming from.
I understand that many of your perceptions are mirrored by Republican/Conservative political representatives, pundits, and academics but the dismissal and indifference to the plights of the less well off is ensuring ideas you favor are going to get dismissed with a dying politically rhetorical agenda.
It would benefit all who wish to counter left leaning ideas to come back to a reasonable world where remarks and beliefs like Jonny's, Wolfstans, Paul Ryan's, and Mitt Romney's are treated with the lenses they should be.+ Show Spoiler +
(This criticism is fair of extremes on the left [myself included considering my take on religion, although I consider it as an opinion gaining popularity] too, where you could substitute names with people who have made similar style comments)
I like having a conservative perspective here I just appreciate it a lot more when it isn't just whining about political leanings of sources (without addressing what should of been said differently or how it impacted the substance of the article or criticizing the least substantive part/representative of an argument or claim while ignoring the rest.
Lawmakers called for a program to develop a next-generation liquid-fuel rocket engine within five years, proposing legislation aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on Russian engines to launch military and spy satellites.
The measure, proposed on Wednesday amid U.S. concerns over Russia's actions in Ukraine, authorizes Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to spend $220 million to begin developing a liquid rocket engine that would be made available to all U.S. space launch providers.
The legislative proposal, which would be included in the House of Representatives' 2014 annual defense policy bill, directs Hagel to develop a rocket engine that "enables the effective, efficient and expedient transition from the use of non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative."
The draft proposal for the National Defense Authorization Act calls for a "full and open competition" to develop an engine made in the United States that meets the needs of the national security community and is available no later than 2019.
United Launch Alliance, or ULA, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, currently uses the RD 180 rocket engine made by Russia's NPO Energomash to launch Atlas V rockets carrying U.S. military and spy satellites.
Air Force officials have assured lawmakers their long-standing relationship with the Russian firm has not been affected by the current crisis in Ukraine, in which Moscow's forces seized control of the Crimean peninsula.
Air Force Undersecretary Eric Fanning told lawmakers last month the United States has enough rocket engines to support launches well into 2016.
U.S. reliance on Russian engines has been a long-time concern for lawmakers, but those worries have been heightened by Russian actions Washington believes are destabilizing Ukraine.
Senators also raised concerns about U.S. dependence on Russian rocket engines at a hearing Wednesday and said they would press for work on an alternate engine.
On May 02 2014 08:00 Wolfstan wrote: Did we really need a study to make findings on the relationship between zoning and property values? People who live live in residential areas zoned next to industrial parks are lower on the social ladder? Quick, fund a study telling me what kind of people I can expect to find living in downtown high rise condos!
No I think just assuming things based on gut feelings is superior to quantifying things based on objective data.
I don't think there's any real science there. They pulled data that already existed and put it into a report to drive a political agenda. Lobbying basically.
I don't think you understand my post there. If we just manned up and cut idiot gov't spending like "Climate Change" lies, SNAP, Medicare, hand outs to the takers etc., then we could buy as many dang F35s as we wanna buy. The Commies are on the rise agin
Lawmakers called for a program to develop a next-generation liquid-fuel rocket engine within five years, proposing legislation aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on Russian engines to launch military and spy satellites.
The measure, proposed on Wednesday amid U.S. concerns over Russia's actions in Ukraine, authorizes Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to spend $220 million to begin developing a liquid rocket engine that would be made available to all U.S. space launch providers.
The legislative proposal, which would be included in the House of Representatives' 2014 annual defense policy bill, directs Hagel to develop a rocket engine that "enables the effective, efficient and expedient transition from the use of non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative."
The draft proposal for the National Defense Authorization Act calls for a "full and open competition" to develop an engine made in the United States that meets the needs of the national security community and is available no later than 2019.
United Launch Alliance, or ULA, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, currently uses the RD 180 rocket engine made by Russia's NPO Energomash to launch Atlas V rockets carrying U.S. military and spy satellites.
Air Force officials have assured lawmakers their long-standing relationship with the Russian firm has not been affected by the current crisis in Ukraine, in which Moscow's forces seized control of the Crimean peninsula.
Air Force Undersecretary Eric Fanning told lawmakers last month the United States has enough rocket engines to support launches well into 2016.
U.S. reliance on Russian engines has been a long-time concern for lawmakers, but those worries have been heightened by Russian actions Washington believes are destabilizing Ukraine.
Senators also raised concerns about U.S. dependence on Russian rocket engines at a hearing Wednesday and said they would press for work on an alternate engine.
Sweet lord... That man from NASA has the patience of a Saint. It must be so frustrating having to answer to people who are so painfully and stubbornly clueless.
I hope for the sake of the world that other nations comparable Science committees aren't comprised of such scientifically ignorant and ideologically blinded people.
Just some highlights of Republican representatives ON THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE ' wisdom on 'Science'
“I haven’t seen anything that convinces me” global warming is real, “much less caused by human activity.”
“They used to talk about global warming — y’all might remember a few years ago they were talking about an ice age was coming. It’s the same folks, the folks who want to change America, want to rule America. They want to change us to a New World Order.”
Sandy Adams introduced an amendment “to prohibit the use of funds for maintaining, developing, or creating any Web site which disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs on energy efficiency specifically to children under 18 years of age.”
“I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do and our lunar, our rovers on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine.”
The representation of Republicans on the science committee should truly scare any Republicans/Conservatives who respect science at all.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/grvghZe.jpg)
