What makes you think there's anything wrong with the business model? If you radically change the expense structure of any business, there's a chance they will fail. It's because businesses are built around the circumstances in place. That doesn't make the business flawed - it means it was structured for the world it exists in. Your $15/hr number is just an arbitrary number that was picked to sound good. And when that campaign was started, $15 wasn't even the same as $15 now. So why not pick $30? Or $50? If a fast food business can't pay $30/hr to it's employees and survive, is it inherently flawed? Why is $15 a magic number we should use to determine if a business model is flawed? The other simple answer to your question is that the economic circumstances in in rural America are way different than in New York City. That might also be why businesses might be structured a tad differently in those places.
No it doesn't. Just because someone gets a raise doesn't mean they are willing to suddenly pay more for the hamburger or soda they've gotten used to thinking costs $X. We've seen this everywhere that minimum wage hikes have happened. The economy adjusts, but it doesn't happen immediately, and there are a lot of winners and losers. There's a reason why the CBO analysis acknowledges that minimum wage hike will both pull many people out of poverty (winners) and also cost a whole bunch of jobs (losers).
If a product is price elastic, then the increase in price due to labour costs will be very small, and the company will have to take a big chunk out of its profits. If a product is price inelastic, then the increase in price will be larger, but it should not be more than the increase in costs. This is because if a company could make more money in revenue AND have less material costs ($1 for each frozen burger) by raising their prices further, then they would probably have already done it by now. Increasing minimum wage WILL result in increased prices, but that increase will never be more than the minimum wage increase unless the company is using the increase as an excuse to screw over their customers and hoik off more profit. This will probably happen in some places, but it's not the fault of the minimum wage. Burgers and soda are not inelastic products. You won't see substantial increases in those prices therefore most small family owned restaurants will probably see the most immediate benefit of a min wage spike in terms of foot traffic into their restaurants.
I was thinking about how Democrats could win in a place like WV and KY along with what are Red Congressional districts. The Manchin blue dog model is one but I think given how the country is divided is tenuous. Many of the rural Trump voters actually share some of the same economic views as Sanders in terms wealth disparity, anti-Globalization and distrust of corporations. This is how Trump got their supports by railing against elites. It seems like you could actually run a someone who was progressive economically but also embraced social issues that are very important to rural voters. You could have someone who pushed for a more progressive tax rate, was against free trade, more regulation on banks and also for Medicare for all but also supported restrictions on abortion, was against gun control and wanted to limit immigration. It's very questionable if such a candidate would be acceptable to most of the Democratic party.
Yes that is an avenue a Democrat in WV could take but there is a fine line between holding Sanders economic views with conservative social views and resembling Nazi "socialism" especially with the radicalization of rural white voter on social issues as of late with the rise of Trump. It's a tight rope walk. Maybe a deeply Christian Democrat with Bernie's economic views mimicking the teachings of the actual biblical Jesus would be a good starting place. Also due to the propaganda that leads a lot of Americans having a irrational fear of the term "socialism", they need to avoid Bernie's rhetoric of "democratic socialist". It's one of the largest issues I have with Bernie. It's just poor framing in a country like this. There are ways to express economic populist ideas without invoking the term "socialist". This unique poltician would obviously also have to start his career grassroots in the heart of WV possibly as a preacher deeply involved in poor rural communties in WV where this hypothetical polticians can gain their trust.
Actually it's a lot of what the Democratic Farmer Labor (DFL) Party, what Minnesota Democrats are called, of the 1980's and 1990's were.
I don't expect such a candidate to adopt the Progressive label and certainly not call themselves a "Socialist" like Sanders does. As I just noted this would be like a DFL politician of 1980's from rural Minnesota or even a Prairie Populists from the first half the 20th Century. Another possibility would be a modern day Carter, not the Carter that we see now but the Carter that was governor of GA in the early 70's.
20 years ago, I'd agree. Today? The two parties are too ideologically demanding. It works at the local and state level - Louisiana's governor is one of these types - but in the Senate, you'd basically piss off and alienate everyone. Even at the House level, the anti-abortion or anti-gun-control types are being weeded out in primaries, so it would be hard to even make a general election I think. The Bernie types hate someone like Manchin - the pro-choice people will hate your candidate just as much.
This is the key issue. Min wage would be easier to stomach if the pro min wage side also addressed how the losers would be taken care of. They might be a smaller %, but these are real people. There is already wage pressure from automation (I'm thinking esp in f&b that I see being done in other countries) and outsourcing.
Turns out a big part of the compromise he and Wyden are proposing is the idea I proposed to get Manchin's support that you thought was terrible, which started our conversation: a tax break to employers who raise wages. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/democrats-minimum-wage-workaround-senate He also called for a tax credit equal to up to 25 percent of wages for small businesses that pay their workers higher wages. Many of the specific numbers, however, have not yet been made public.
I agree and was why I noted whether the rest of the Democrats would accept such an individual. That said ideological purity won't get either party the majority and if Democrats want to maintain the majority they need to keep a diversity of ideological views especially for candidates that can win in districts that Democrats haven't normally held. As much as people complain about the Electoral College, the unequitable nature of the Senate and Gerrymandered Congressional Districts none of those are going to change anytime soon. Especially since Democrats failed to capture any state houses the last election and Republicans are still going have an advantage on redistricting.
I completely agree. However, crazy primary voters don't listen to you or me. That said, if both parties demand ideological purity, it will work out for one of them - someone will end up with a majority (I suspect it would be the GOP in the House due to gerrymandering, GOP in the Senate due to the sheer # of red states, and Dem in the Presidency due to national vote preferences). The winning side will see that as the way to go, and the losing side will always blame the squishy moderates, so both parties keep trending towards ideological purity.
As a moderate that mostly voted democrat, I can see myself shifting the other direction if two things happen. The democrats moves more towards Sanders/AOC/Warren class warfare rhetoric, and Republicans move away from Trump.
immediately convert your stimmy check cuck bucks to rock hard bitcoin, your future self will thank you
So just ingore the actual economic trends of the past 40'vyears where your moderate polices of free trade, and trickle down economics occured? You do know that those polices are just inevitable or the other option is the increased frequency of social unrest and riots. Politicians don't need to tell people that the price of homes, rent, healthcare and education have greatly outpaced inflation while wages haven't for decades now. How long do you honestly think the trend is sustainable. Many moderates here agree that it isn't and understand that some of Bernie's policies are eventually going to be needed some time in the following decades or else again, you will see more social unrest and riots.
I can’t disagree more - as poll after poll has shown, all the economic stuff is just a faux justification for white grievance. If you probe most any conservative about his/her beliefs, the end result is that they feel there are ethnic groups in this country that are threatening their prosperity. So long as the Democrat Party remains inclusive, anyone who still calls themself a Republican will never vote for a Democrat.
