|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 09 2021 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden being an improvement over Trump isn't a reason to never push for anything more. You can celebrate victories without being satisfied with the current situation. The reason Trump is relevant is people need to understand what % of the country voted for Trump rather than Biden. That divide exists and so does various other divides.
There is a huge cultural battle to be fought to help change people's minds and get away from conservatism. I think a lot of people just don't understand how many minds still need to be changed. Millions of people voted for Trump because they wanted what Trump wanted rather than Biden. Given the voters we've got, I am happy with the progress being made and hope a lot more also happens.
It's because Biden is too fucking old mate. That's why I voted for Trump. Of course, Trump is also too old, but he's still four years younger than Biden.
|
On March 09 2021 03:35 Cbole wrote:Long term lurker, first time poster. I tend to lean a little bit more conservative, so bear with me. If I may say, in regards to the $15 minimum wage, I'm not sure that the no vote wasn't representative of the population. There are places, mainly in cities, where an argument for $15 is fair, and far more places where raising the minimum wage should have been done long ago, but a blanket $15 minimum wage will decimatw the economies of rural cities and towns. The idea of it being for the greater good just simply ignores those places that have hundreds and thousands of people in their population in order to satisfy the population of bigger cities in which minimum wage raises are necessary. For example, a cost of living comparison between Huntsville, Alabama and Seattle, Washington shows that an income of $100,174 goes as far as only $50,000 in Huntsville. www.bestplaces.netOver doubling the minimum wage in this region destroys local businesses and ruins the economy there. Rather, at least from my perspective, it makes sense to do things at a local and state level, similar to how it is done now.
The major problem is that conservatives themselves have nuked this option. When a blue city raises its minimum wage, if it is in a red state, they immediately pass a law banning the raising of the minimum wage by localities. This bad faith behavior prevents the "leave it to the states and cities" argument from holding any water.
Manchin was the only democrat voting against the bill who could have been doing so for the reasons you're citing, btw. The other opposition figures came from much wealthier states.
|
On March 09 2021 03:35 Cbole wrote:Long term lurker, first time poster. I tend to lean a little bit more conservative, so bear with me. If I may say, in regards to the $15 minimum wage, I'm not sure that the no vote wasn't representative of the population. There are places, mainly in cities, where an argument for $15 is fair, and far more places where raising the minimum wage should have been done long ago, but a blanket $15 minimum wage will decimatw the economies of rural cities and towns. The idea of it being for the greater good just simply ignores those places that have hundreds and thousands of people in their population in order to satisfy the population of bigger cities in which minimum wage raises are necessary. For example, a cost of living comparison between Huntsville, Alabama and Seattle, Washington shows that an income of $100,174 goes as far as only $50,000 in Huntsville. www.bestplaces.netOver doubling the minimum wage in this region destroys local businesses and ruins the economy there. Rather, at least from my perspective, it makes sense to do things at a local and state level, similar to how it is done now.
It's worth remembering that CoL measurements can leave important information out of the equation that is still very relevant to the push for uniform minimum wages increases, such as the fact that a significant financial emergency will bankrupt minimum wage-targeted populations literally anywhere in the US. And as Nevuk points out above, the whole "leave it to the locals" thing is irreconcilable with how GOP-dominated state legislatures continually restrict localities' ability to provide benefits tailored to their unique circumstances.
|
On March 09 2021 03:35 Cbole wrote:Long term lurker, first time poster. I tend to lean a little bit more conservative, so bear with me. If I may say, in regards to the $15 minimum wage, I'm not sure that the no vote wasn't representative of the population. There are places, mainly in cities, where an argument for $15 is fair, and far more places where raising the minimum wage should have been done long ago, but a blanket $15 minimum wage will decimatw the economies of rural cities and towns. The idea of it being for the greater good just simply ignores those places that have hundreds and thousands of people in their population in order to satisfy the population of bigger cities in which minimum wage raises are necessary. For example, a cost of living comparison between Huntsville, Alabama and Seattle, Washington shows that an income of $100,174 goes as far as only $50,000 in Huntsville. www.bestplaces.netOver doubling the minimum wage in this region destroys local businesses and ruins the economy there. Rather, at least from my perspective, it makes sense to do things at a local and state level, similar to how it is done now.
Part of the issue with the minimum wage is that since it wasn't adjusted for inflation (It should be $24 right now), a lot of profoundly shitty businesses have been able to survive that shouldn't have. Its basically entirely fucked our labor market. When Cletus gets mad about his boss asking him to do things, Cletus wonders if he could just open a flooring company and pay people $7/hr to do shitty work. There are an amazing amount of businesses that just shouldn't exist today and the owners should quit their whining and go back to their old jobs.
There is nothing admirable, respectable or in any way intrinsically positive about starting your own business. If I decided to sell snow globes filled with my bath water for $99999999, it would have nothing to do with boot straps. I'd just be a dumbass. The same is true for many other businesses, especially in the rural areas you are describing. How many small business owners completely abuse the tax system to buy themselves a new family car? I've known tons. Starting your own business is the most direct form of socialism available in the US.
|
On March 09 2021 03:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 03:35 Cbole wrote:Long term lurker, first time poster. I tend to lean a little bit more conservative, so bear with me. If I may say, in regards to the $15 minimum wage, I'm not sure that the no vote wasn't representative of the population. There are places, mainly in cities, where an argument for $15 is fair, and far more places where raising the minimum wage should have been done long ago, but a blanket $15 minimum wage will decimatw the economies of rural cities and towns. The idea of it being for the greater good just simply ignores those places that have hundreds and thousands of people in their population in order to satisfy the population of bigger cities in which minimum wage raises are necessary. For example, a cost of living comparison between Huntsville, Alabama and Seattle, Washington shows that an income of $100,174 goes as far as only $50,000 in Huntsville. www.bestplaces.netOver doubling the minimum wage in this region destroys local businesses and ruins the economy there. Rather, at least from my perspective, it makes sense to do things at a local and state level, similar to how it is done now. The major problem is that conservatives themselves have nuked this option. When a blue city raises its minimum wage, if it is in a red state, they immediately pass a law banning the raising of the minimum wage by localities. This bad faith behavior prevents the "leave it to the states and cities" argument from holding any water. Manchin was the only democrat voting against the bill who could have been doing so for the reasons you're citing, btw. The other opposition figures came from much wealthier states.
If that is the case that conservatives have nuked that option, shouldn't the pressure be placed on the state governments to stop that from happening, instead of the federal government? To me, going to the federal government to establish a federal minimum wage hike is fighting one problem with another.
To your second point, the 8 Democrats that voted against minimum wage were Manchin (WV), Sinema (AZ), Shaheen (NH), Hassan (NH), Tester (MT), Carper (DE), Coons (DE), and King (ME). Of these states, the highest cost of living index is in 105.4, on a scale where 100.0 is the US average. The only other one to eclipse the average is Delaware at 102.7. So while yes, Manchin has the strongest argument against (whose state has a cost of living index of 78.1), none of these states have a strong argument in favor of raising minimum wage by over double. Again, there are catastrophic implications on the economy to doubling minimum wage.
Further, these senators may be voting for what they perceive to be the greater good. If they feel that the rural markets across the United States would be destroyed, the bigger implications may be a stark increase in cost of living prices that may negatively impact their state as a whole. There is a cost and a benefit to everything, and just because a short term increase in some peoples' livelihood might occur, the longer term consequence that may accompany that might outweigh that in their minds.
Compare these cost of living indices to those areas with the highest minimum wage, California, D.C., Massachusetts, and Washington. These indices are 149.9, 152.1, 127.2, and 118.7, all of which are significantly higher than the average and so there is more of an argument to have a higher minimum wage. Again, I am not arguing that the minimum wage amount doesn't need to be raised in a lot of places, my argument sits with the idea that it should be a universal $15 all across the United States. Especially considering as the places that have the highest costs of living are barely helped by the changes, as minimum wage is already higher in those states. Essentially, it is destroying many smaller towns and cities economically for minimal benefit to those who actually need the higher wages. Further, it displaces people from the job market, creates a shift towards automation, and incentivizes paying people illegally or under the table to skirt around the minimum wage laws.
|
On March 09 2021 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 03:35 Cbole wrote:Long term lurker, first time poster. I tend to lean a little bit more conservative, so bear with me. If I may say, in regards to the $15 minimum wage, I'm not sure that the no vote wasn't representative of the population. There are places, mainly in cities, where an argument for $15 is fair, and far more places where raising the minimum wage should have been done long ago, but a blanket $15 minimum wage will decimatw the economies of rural cities and towns. The idea of it being for the greater good just simply ignores those places that have hundreds and thousands of people in their population in order to satisfy the population of bigger cities in which minimum wage raises are necessary. For example, a cost of living comparison between Huntsville, Alabama and Seattle, Washington shows that an income of $100,174 goes as far as only $50,000 in Huntsville. www.bestplaces.netOver doubling the minimum wage in this region destroys local businesses and ruins the economy there. Rather, at least from my perspective, it makes sense to do things at a local and state level, similar to how it is done now. Part of the issue with the minimum wage is that since it wasn't adjusted for inflation (It should be $24 right now), a lot of profoundly shitty businesses have been able to survive that shouldn't have. Its basically entirely fucked our labor market. When Cletus gets mad about his boss asking him to do things, Cletus wonders if he could just open a flooring company and pay people $7/hr to do shitty work. There are an amazing amount of businesses that just shouldn't exist today and the owners should quit their whining and go back to their old jobs. There is nothing admirable, respectable or in any way intrinsically positive about starting your own business. If I decided to sell snow globes filled with my bath water for $99999999, it would have nothing to do with boot straps. I'd just be a dumbass. The same is true for many other businesses, especially in the rural areas you are describing. How many small business owners completely abuse the tax system to buy themselves a new family car? I've known tons. Starting your own business is the most direct form of socialism available in the US.
I am curious as to where you get the $24 an hour figure. According to
www.in2013dollars.com
The original minimum wage of $0.25 in 1938 would have the equivalent purchasing power of $4.64, not anywhere near $24.
|
24$ sounds pretty high. I think I saw that the highest minimum wage ever would be equivalent to something like 12.50$/hr about two years ago.
|
$24 is based on productivity, not just inflation. Sorry, should have specified.
|
On March 09 2021 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:
$24 is based on productivity, not just inflation. Sorry, should have specified.
Wouldn't productivity be placed on the employer? Intuitively, their investments into machinery, equipment and technology would have lead to the increase in productivity. If I am at a place that makes 1 unit of product every day, and then an increase in technology becomes available to make 6 units of product every day, unless that technology becoming available (whether due to innovation or it being purchased), I don't see why I should be entitled to 6 times the pay.
Regardless of that, I still would like to see a source. As the other user posted, I've heard $12.50/hr being argued for, but the only time I've seen $24/hr was when AOC tweeted it out last week.
|
On March 09 2021 04:40 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:
$24 is based on productivity, not just inflation. Sorry, should have specified. Wouldn't productivity be placed on the employer? Intuitively, their investments into machinery, equipment and technology would have lead to the increase in productivity. If I am at a place that makes 1 unit of product every day, and then an increase in technology becomes available to make 6 units of product every day, unless that technology becoming available (whether due to innovation or it being purchased), I don't see why I should be entitled to 6 times the pay. Regardless of that, I still would like to see a source. As the other user posted, I've heard $12.50/hr being argued for, but the only time I've seen $24/hr was when AOC tweeted it out last week.
Remove any component of a company and it can't function. In my eyes, increased productivity financial gains should always be equally spread among everyone involved.
|
On March 09 2021 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 04:40 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:
$24 is based on productivity, not just inflation. Sorry, should have specified. Wouldn't productivity be placed on the employer? Intuitively, their investments into machinery, equipment and technology would have lead to the increase in productivity. If I am at a place that makes 1 unit of product every day, and then an increase in technology becomes available to make 6 units of product every day, unless that technology becoming available (whether due to innovation or it being purchased), I don't see why I should be entitled to 6 times the pay. Regardless of that, I still would like to see a source. As the other user posted, I've heard $12.50/hr being argued for, but the only time I've seen $24/hr was when AOC tweeted it out last week. Remove any component of a company and it can't function. In my eyes, increased productivity financial gains should always be equally spread among everyone involved.
I would agree if the original purchase, maintenance and upkeep costs were also distributed evenly distributed. The person doing the buying incurs all the costs and risks.
And again I ask for your $24/hr source. I've sourced all of my information, and if anyone requires more sources, I am happy to provide them.
|
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps.
|
On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps.
With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level.
|
On March 09 2021 04:53 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:On March 09 2021 04:40 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:
$24 is based on productivity, not just inflation. Sorry, should have specified. Wouldn't productivity be placed on the employer? Intuitively, their investments into machinery, equipment and technology would have lead to the increase in productivity. If I am at a place that makes 1 unit of product every day, and then an increase in technology becomes available to make 6 units of product every day, unless that technology becoming available (whether due to innovation or it being purchased), I don't see why I should be entitled to 6 times the pay. Regardless of that, I still would like to see a source. As the other user posted, I've heard $12.50/hr being argued for, but the only time I've seen $24/hr was when AOC tweeted it out last week. Remove any component of a company and it can't function. In my eyes, increased productivity financial gains should always be equally spread among everyone involved. I would agree if the original purchase, maintenance and upkeep costs were also distributed evenly distributed. The person doing the buying incurs all the costs and risks. And again I ask for your $24/hr source. I've sourced all of my information, and if anyone requires more sources, I am happy to provide them.
In reality, purchasing equipment is extremely low cost to most businesses because of the various handouts built into small business tax codes. The idea that running a business is risky is something that is largely overstated. Small business owners can be pretty reckless before it matters.
There is no "source" for a $24/hr minimum wage in some sort of technical sense, but there are articles where it is explained. Here is one: https://theintercept.com/2021/03/05/minimum-wage-raise-15/
The crux of my argument is that the ethics of wealth distribution are wildly out of whack currently. A business owner simply does not have ethical justification to reap the majority of productivity increases, so long as any other humans are involved in the company. Business owners are not taking nearly sufficient risk to eat it all up. I would be useless without my technicians and operators. Technicians and operators would be useless without engineers. So long as no component can be removed, I think everyone involved should be reaping productivity benefits.
|
On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level.
Let's just take an example for the sake of it. Where is $15/hr by 2025 too much compensation for what work?
|
On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level. As with much of the things being done at the federal level, "because a bunch of states don't do it".
If every state kept up with its minimum wage the federal government most likely wouldn't be getting involved.
|
On March 09 2021 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level. Let's just take an example for the sake of it. Where is $15/hr by 2025 too much compensation for what work?
Anywhere where $15 + costs to run a business exceed the amount being brought in by the average employee? Again, mainly rural counties and smaller towns do not require a $15 minimum wage. I think a lot of people approach the topic of minimum wage going based off their own experiences. If you live in a major city, especially one with a high cost of living, it is hard to imagine a place which doesn't require as much to live. Livable wages vary greatly between counties and cities, and the solution is not to artifically skew wages across the board to the higher cost of living places.
|
On March 09 2021 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2021 05:17 Cbole wrote:On March 09 2021 04:58 Gorsameth wrote:
a direct comparison with productivity probably doesn't often work because the company isn't selling just 6x the products for the same price but possibly at a reduced price to beat out competitors. Increases in productivity don't have to match increases in profit 1:1.
But the general notion that if productivity goes up the workers salary should also go up, as they are still the ones doing the work, is not unreasonable at all. That fact that this hasn't happened over the decades is a massive part of why income inequality is so high right now.
The increased profits from increased productivity per worker haven't going to the workers, but to the top. So you get CEO's making tens of millions while the workers are on food stamps. With that I do not disagree. The way I personally feel about minimum wage law is that there is a need for it, and that it definitely should be increased. My personal disagreement with the $15 minimum wage, and the way this thread was going when I initially commented, is the degree to how much an increase is warranted, and whether it belongs at the federal level. As with much of the things being done at the federal level, "because a bunch of states don't do it". If every state kept up with its minimum wage the federal government most likely wouldn't be getting involved.
I'd argue that states have been doing it, where needed. In the areas where the cost of living is significantly higher, the states have raised their minimum wage. Now, arguments can be had to which is the cause and which is the effect, but the states with the highest costs of living also tend to have the highest minimum wages.
Is this true across the board, where every state / city that needs a higher minimum wage has one? No, but again, I think that is when the elected officials of state and local legislatures should be petitioned, not the federal government.
And I'll reitterate this point again: a federal minimum wage of $15 does little to help the places with the highest costs of living like California, New York City, and Washington, because their minimum wage has already been raised. If anything, the ensuing increase in costs of production will hurt those places more, while also significantly hurting the places which cannot sustain a minimum wage of $15.
|
The idea that the business incurs risk when buying a piece of equipment is pretty silly. When we buy brand new GC, XRF, etc we can sell it used for a portion of it and the companies that make them will come make sure they are operating. They come with extensive warranties and service.
Working for someone especially in at will state incurs a lot of risk. Let’s say I moved to get a new analyst position by someone that bought that instrument. Am I not incurring risk? Should I not share in profits if it’s successful? If I get laid off and instrument sold business owner is out a portion of their money but now I’m out a job and in an unknown city. Who took the bigger risk ?
|
On March 08 2021 06:44 Belisarius wrote:
If Biden can get to 2022 with the filibuster dead, PR/DC statehood and some form of HR1, I would consider that a huge success. Those are the core loopholes that the fascist takeover depends on, and short of murdering FPTP, there's nothing more important for the country in the long run than getting rid of them.
They're also fairly dry, technical reforms that the right-leaning dems can probably slide past their constituents if they virtue-signal loudly enough on some woke issue at the same time. Personally, I think the party is holding the whip for those kinds of votes.
This analysis seems more or less right to me. I wrote several paragraphs a week or two ago about my pessimism regarding the possibility of affecting radical change through a national political movement aimed at electing national leaders who will enact the necessary changes through legislation. It’s unimaginable to me that Congress would manage to enact anything close to the necessary changes on healthcare, or climate change, or police brutality, let alone “ending capitalism” or any of the other major goals of progressives any time within the next, say, 30 years.
$15 minimum wage is a great example of the problem. It’s not a radical progressive policy. Florida enacted one by a huge margin in the same election it voted to re-elect Trump. And yet it’s virtually impossible to pass. The reason is that we’ve effectively transitioned to a political system in which the Senate has 50 senators, and the threshold to pass a bill is, with a few rare arcane exceptions in the bylaws, 60 votes. Those arcane bylaws don’t allow the minimum wage vote to avoid the 60 vote threshold, so it’s not happening. Even if it had a 50 vote threshold, it wouldn’t happen, because while the overwhelming majority of those 50 senators support it, it’s not unanimous.
This results in arguments between progressives and centrists. Centrists shrug their shoulders and say “I guess we just don’t have the votes to enact a minimum wage, too bad!” Progressives, meanwhile, argue that we should have employed even more arcane bylaws to force the minimum wage to be allowed to have a 50 vote threshold, while simultaneously tying it to a bill that does have unanimous support among those 50 senators, and try to force the ones who oppose minimum wage to vote for it anyway rather than kill a bill they otherwise support. Centrists raise two objections: first, that it’s not clear those even more arcane bylaws exist for them to use, and second, that it’s just as likely one of those few senators would just choose to kill the bill entirely (a risk that progressives would argue they should take).
But that means that, depending on who you ask, a federal $15 minimum wage was either never possible, or just barely possible with some extraordinary procedural maneuvering and taking some pretty big political risks. From that I can’t avoid the conclusion that within the current system, a $15 minimum wage is presumably very close to the leftmost boundary of what policies are politically possible to enact; progressives and centrists are just disagreeing about which side of that boundary it barely falls on.
The decision point here, to me, seems mostly illusory. If you’ll forgive a brief analogy: suppose you board a Transatlantic flight. About an hour in, a steward asks you if you’d prefer chicken or fish for the in-flight meal. You say chicken. Half an hour later, the pilot announces in a worried tone “we’re gonna have some major turbulence, hold tight...” and the plane shudders violently. A few dizzying minutes later the plane is plummeting toward the water at lethal speeds, and in your last moments, you think to yourself, “Should have gone with the fish...”
I should say that last year we got into a long discussion of trolley problems that I think a lot of people found tiresome, and for that reason I hesitate to argue by analogy here. In hopes of preventing a similar digression, I’ll say at the outset that I think the chicken-or-fish scenario is an imperfect analog for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that it implies that the decision in question is of essentially zero moral consequence. But what I think it conveys is how the illusion of choice can result in a pretty serious misdiagnosis of a problem’s causes and solutions. The underlying problem with the minimum wage situation was that a minimum wage increase required 60 of 50 senators. Whether or not it was possible through procedural maneuvering to make it require 50 of 50 senators, and then force a few senators to vote for it despite not supporting it, neither choice addressed the underlying issue.
The only solutions to that underlying problem would be to increase the number of senators who might vote for a good bill, or to lower the threshold required (or, ideally, both). The former would require either electing more Democrats or earning the support of some Republicans; the latter would require filibuster reform. This post is already too long so I’ll leave for another time to enumerate why I’m pessimistic any of those are likely to enable real progressive reforms to happen, but for any political action that doesn’t do one of those, the range of possible outcomes is, at best, no further left than a $15 minimum wage, which is to say, not left at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
