|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 February 10 2016 03:42 oneofthem wrote:
at the low margin where you have low profit businesses paying poorly, or franchises on the border of 'not a good investment', it's going to affect things greatly. basically for workers in these situations, a higher minimum wage at the present may mean less investment in the future, and the jobs will be lost or not expand in productivity.
as a general piece of punditry a 15$ minimum is fine, we do need higher wage and lower corp profit in general. 15$ for the federal minimum is pretty awkward though for some areas.
There would be less need for a high federal minimum if states sorted their own minimums better.
|
On February 10 2016 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 03:42 oneofthem wrote:
at the low margin where you have low profit businesses paying poorly, or franchises on the border of 'not a good investment', it's going to affect things greatly. basically for workers in these situations, a higher minimum wage at the present may mean less investment in the future, and the jobs will be lost or not expand in productivity.
as a general piece of punditry a 15$ minimum is fine, we do need higher wage and lower corp profit in general. 15$ for the federal minimum is pretty awkward though for some areas.
There would be less need for a high federal minimum if states sorted their own minimums better.
And the growing problem that the longer they take to raise it, the more problems is causes for states that don't have the political will to address the issue.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 10 2016 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 03:42 oneofthem wrote:
at the low margin where you have low profit businesses paying poorly, or franchises on the border of 'not a good investment', it's going to affect things greatly. basically for workers in these situations, a higher minimum wage at the present may mean less investment in the future, and the jobs will be lost or not expand in productivity.
as a general piece of punditry a 15$ minimum is fine, we do need higher wage and lower corp profit in general. 15$ for the federal minimum is pretty awkward though for some areas.
There would be less need for a high federal minimum if states sorted their own minimums better.
it's more like the cost of living and general level of economic activity for different regions are different.
|
+ Show Spoiler [538 Charts] +Before the debate: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PhV0hle.png) After the debate: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wbsSm8q.png)
If the post-debate polling trends continue into today's voting Rubio's in serious trouble. He's already in a dead heat with Kasich, and if his numbers drop further while Kasich's and Jeb's rise he's going to end up fourth, (or maybe even fifth behind Cruz).
It's iffy whether Kasich can keep going even if he finishes well in NH, he has virtually no money, but a resurgent Jeb could be the end of Rubio's campaign.
|
|
|
On February 10 2016 04:01 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 10 2016 03:42 oneofthem wrote:
at the low margin where you have low profit businesses paying poorly, or franchises on the border of 'not a good investment', it's going to affect things greatly. basically for workers in these situations, a higher minimum wage at the present may mean less investment in the future, and the jobs will be lost or not expand in productivity.
as a general piece of punditry a 15$ minimum is fine, we do need higher wage and lower corp profit in general. 15$ for the federal minimum is pretty awkward though for some areas.
There would be less need for a high federal minimum if states sorted their own minimums better. it's more like the cost of living and general level of economic activity for different regions are different.
That's something I've been thinking about (and I'm positive it's not an original thought) - minimum wage is woefully low, in general, but I also recognize that $15/hr would be crippling in certain parts of the country (even if the goal is $15 by 2020). It feels like a Federal Minimum Wage Index that takes regional costs of living and inflation into account would be more palatable and feasible.
|
On February 10 2016 04:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 04:01 oneofthem wrote:On February 10 2016 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 10 2016 03:42 oneofthem wrote:
at the low margin where you have low profit businesses paying poorly, or franchises on the border of 'not a good investment', it's going to affect things greatly. basically for workers in these situations, a higher minimum wage at the present may mean less investment in the future, and the jobs will be lost or not expand in productivity.
as a general piece of punditry a 15$ minimum is fine, we do need higher wage and lower corp profit in general. 15$ for the federal minimum is pretty awkward though for some areas.
There would be less need for a high federal minimum if states sorted their own minimums better. it's more like the cost of living and general level of economic activity for different regions are different. That's something I've been thinking about (and I'm positive it's not an original thought) - minimum wage is woefully low, in general, but I also recognize that $15/hr would be crippling in certain parts of the country (even if the goal is $15 by 2020). It feels like a Federal Minimum Wage Index that takes regional costs of living and inflation into account would be more palatable and feasible.
Which is why Clinton advocates for a new system of determining min wage that considers local factors.
|
On February 10 2016 04:01 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 10 2016 03:42 oneofthem wrote:
at the low margin where you have low profit businesses paying poorly, or franchises on the border of 'not a good investment', it's going to affect things greatly. basically for workers in these situations, a higher minimum wage at the present may mean less investment in the future, and the jobs will be lost or not expand in productivity.
as a general piece of punditry a 15$ minimum is fine, we do need higher wage and lower corp profit in general. 15$ for the federal minimum is pretty awkward though for some areas.
There would be less need for a high federal minimum if states sorted their own minimums better. it's more like the cost of living and general level of economic activity for different regions are different.
My point is that if every state did a better job of keeping minimum wage at a good level for the respective region then there would be less need for the federal government to step in.
People often complain that the federal government is dictating policy but that is because if left alone the states wouldn't do it themselves.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sure, but i doubt rural america is where the minimum wage qua inquality issue is most salient. rural areas probably need more development rather than trying to balance owner profit vs labor wage.
a lot of the recent outcry against low paying jobs has to do wtih rising cost of living and specifically rent increases.
|
My guesses (can't even call them predictions) for NH:
+ Show Spoiler +Repubicans: Trump wins, Kasich second, Bush-Cruz tie for third, Rubio fourth, the rest are peanuts. Carson and Fiorina hang on until South Carolina.
Democrats: Bernie wins obviously, margin is 10-13%
Anyone here actually from NH?
|
The state of Michigan’s inquiry into the Flint water crisis will consider any potential criminal conduct, including involuntary manslaughter, investigators said Tuesday.
Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette and a team of investigators appointed last month to examine Flint’s water debacle said they’ve “hit the ground running” in the investigation.
“As I’ve said for some time, to try to capture in words the tragedy of what occurred in Flint, it’s almost beyond description,” Schuette said during a roundtable with reporters.
The investigators declined to put a timeline on when the inquiry will be completed, but said the scope of potential criminal charges that may be considered include misconduct in office and involuntary manslaughter.
“If you have a duty and you breach that duty, [and] because of the gross negligence of that breach someone died, and you can show the proximate cause of that death reached to the breach, then you can have involuntary manslaughter,” said Todd Flood, a former county prosecutor. “It’s not far-fetched – it happens. We’ve had that before.”
Flint’s water supply was contaminated by lead, after the source of the city’s drinking water was switched from Lake Huron to the Flint river in April 2014. Water from the Flint river had for months corroded lead from the inside of water pipes before flowing into thousands of households across the city.
In the intervening 18-month period before the state conceded Flint’s drinking water was contaminated, state officials documented a spike of legionnaires’ disease in the area surrounding Flint, including nine deaths, but officials haven’t concluded the water source was the cause of the increase.
Source
|
On February 10 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:My guesses (can't even call them predictions) for NH: + Show Spoiler +Repubicans: Trump wins, Kasich second, Bush-Cruz tie for third, Rubio fourth, the rest are peanuts. Carson and Fiorina hang on until South Carolina.
Democrats: Bernie wins obviously, margin is 10-13% Anyone here actually from NH?
This this is about right. Sounds like Kasich may do REALLY well. within 5% of Trump and according to media reports Bush may have some luck and get a stand alone 3rd.
|
I have a gut feeling that 25% chance of a Trump loss 538's model holds is going to happen. Not enough to lay anything on the line about it but there's rumblings in my stomach that only a Trump failure can satisfy.
Then again my gut feelings are crap but whatever.
|
On February 10 2016 06:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I have a gut feeling that 25% chance of a Trump loss 538's model holds is going to happen. Not enough to lay anything on the line about it but there's rumblings in my stomach that only a Trump failure can satisfy.
Then again my gut feelings are crap but whatever.
My gut is telling me Christie will do better than anticipated in NH, but ticklish's rough predictions are more likely to be closer to the truth
|
On February 10 2016 06:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I have a gut feeling that 25% chance of a Trump loss 538's model holds is going to happen. Not enough to lay anything on the line about it but there's rumblings in my stomach that only a Trump failure can satisfy.
Then again my gut feelings are crap but whatever.
Trump has 25% of the vote, someone has to do better than that, and that's going to be tough with support spread out. If Bush isn't actually getting the support it's possible, but I don't see it happening if Kasich has 20% and Rubio and Cruz keep 20% between them
I personally spent 10 minutes convincing an undecided why it was more important to support Sanders than Kasich, wasn't easy but I got her. So The margin on the D side could be unexpectedly small but more as a result of Kasich success rather than anything Hillary did in the last week.
|
Here's my predictions:
+ Show Spoiler [IANA political analyst] +Sanders will beat Clinton by around 14 points. It won't be as decisive as he wanted but will be enough to keep the fight going. As for the Republicans: - Trump: 24%
- Kasich: 19%
- Jeb: 16%
- Cruz: 12%
- Rubio: 11%
- Christie: 9%
Basically I expect recent polling trends to continue, which spells disaster for Rubio and good news for just about everyone else that matters.
|
Democrats everywhere can be found praying, for the first time in their godless lives, in hopes that Rubio doesn't do well tonight.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On February 10 2016 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Democrats everywhere can be found praying, for the first time in their godless lives, in hopes that Rubio doesn't do well tonight.
Nah, I'm OK with him winning the primary if he debates like that in the general.
Edit: I'm independent voting Sanders so maybe I'm not in your group?
|
I think he's joking
Looking ahead at SC, Bush is actually just a couple points behind Rubio. If Rubio does poorly in NH and Bush survives then Bush has a noticeably better debate performance I can see things swinging back his way. Jeb!
|
Norway28563 Posts
meh
I mean rubio got exposed and ridiculed for the rehearsed statements, but the main thing that separates his rehearsed statements from those of other candidates is that his rehearsed statements are more eloquent. Everyone has their talking points that they keep bringing up ad nauseum. I'm totally supportive of Sanders, but in the previous debate I thought there were several instances of him dodging a question just to *insert wall street talking bit here*.
Trump is the only one who seems not to rehearse his statements much, and who ad libs the most, but then he's also the by far least eloquent, so I'm not particularly impressed by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
