Your entire argument is based on the fact you think working for a corporation is evil and just by being on a board something is wrong with you. And then you make up the bolded part with no proof. From the article. Washington is famous for its revolving door, with erstwhile lawmakers regularly joining lobbying firms or starting their own. Under federal ethics reforms adopted over the past three decades, there’s been a required cooling-off period — one year for representatives, two for senators — before they’re allowed to start officially politicking on behalf of corporate America. But nothing bars them from becoming directors right away. And since 1992, 44 percent of senators and 11 percent of representatives who’ve departed Capitol Hill have ended up in boardrooms, according to research from Harvard University and Boston University. Where’s the harm in that? Robert Weissman, president of the government-watchdog group Public Citizen, said one concern is that a lawmaker might hold his or her fire on an issue to increase the odds of getting a director job. Even this guy is saying MIGHT yet you paint everybody as tainted because they don't agree with you. Can you point me to something saying all of these former members did something to help there corporations while in Congress? And then you have this in article which is my take. "Boards should have members with a mix of skills and backgrounds, said Alec Levenson, a senior research scientist at the Center for Effective Organizations in the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. And he said it isn’t realistic to expect members of Congress to never pursue another livelihood. “You can’t outlaw people from working,” he said. “We’re always going to be in this imperfect world where the people who have the money and the power, they are going to have a better advantage than the ones who don’t.”
I'm having a hard time following you here. Isn't @fchowd0311 essentially saying that some of these politicians are ultimately trying to think of their prospects beyond being in politics and will hold firm on an idea if it means being given a lucrative board job? Does it really matter that the guy said "MIGHT"? The politician still may have acted on future interests, regardless if he received a position after calling it quits on being a politician. I'm looking more for clarification on what you are trying to say.
An excellent, and cheap, local burger chain here in Austin, P. Terry's, announced today that they are raising their minimum wage for their 900 employees to $15 an hour. All natural Angus beef in their burgers and Idaho Burbank potatoes for their fries. While I was sitting in my car in line to pick up a mid-afternoon cheeseburger to tide me over until dinner, I heard it on our local NPR station. An outstanding Austin business. Kudos!
Unfortunately because the rest of the state isn't anywhere close to that min wage, that's actually might hurt the business unless people go there out of good publicity. The economic benefits to small businesses raising the min wage is you get increased foot traffic to these places but if only a few restaurants here and there do it, you aren't going to see that increased foot traffic. But that still is great on them and a good example to set. I hope they thrive and people go there to reward them.
Fchowd0311 isn’t proposing that members of Congress never work again - he’s pointing out that by allowing big corporations to dangle the opportunity for lucrative board positions in exchange for favorable legislation (or a omission of legislation) favorable we (the citizens) are doing nothing more than enabling bribery. This is a massive conflict of interest that wouldn’t be tolerated in most private companies, yet we somehow find it ok in our government. You seem to be convinced that this is only a distant possibility when it’s a regular occurrence. Your whole line of argument is reminiscent of the conservatives SC Justices’ justifications in Citizens United, which led to an avalanche of dark money into politics. Everyone knew that was exactly what would happen, but the judges argued it only MIGHT happen. As it so happens, that connects me to my other point. You’ve been criticizing fchowd0311 for calling many of our congressmen bad faith actors, which is hilarious because almost the entire Republican Party has been acting in bad faith since Obama was elected. They are long past the point of deserving the benefit of the doubt.
As I said I'm a reluctant supporter of raising the minimum wage and am coming around to being a reluctant supporter of UBI. Both have issues with how they can distort the market. I see both as blunt broad based instruments and would like to see more targeted solutions but those might make things too complicated to implement.
I don't think we should give up doing this state by state and ideally minimum wages should be set per state. While certainly there is strong resistance ideologically in Texas and other states but given that there are many lower class voters who could benefit from it there is the possibility of trying to win them over. Again this comes down to messaging.
FC thinks that anybody who does not agree with (example) 15 minimum wage or any other progressive ideal is because they are in the pocket of corporations or is looking to get put on a board. My issue is him painting politicians he does not agree with as being corporatist. I also have issues with him saying that just because a politician is on a board they are inherently working against the common man. He has a history of this going back to crapping on mayor pete and claiming anybody who did not like Bernie was a corporate shill and working for their interest. My point with pointing out the "Might" is that we don't know their motivations so why automatically paint them as evil it's a lazy way to look at things IMO. I am not saying that politicians looking to get on boards and voting accordingly is not a thing I just push back on the idea that people opposed to the 15 dollars must be in the corporate pocket or that a politician working on a board is inherently evil. I hope that clears it up.
Why have DC polticians warranted you the benefit of the doubt on these matters when we allow this blatant legal bribery? It's legal. Most polticians are ambitious. There is almost no opputuinity cost for utilizing these legal bribe schemes. Can you answer that?
This is not a massive conflict of interest companies higher people from other companies all the time. I am not saying this is a good thing what I am pushing back on is him saying that people like Manchin and Senima who don't vote for 15 dollars are doing it because they want jobs on a board or that getting a job on a board makes you tainted. He was up in arms about the defense secretary because he is coming out of working in defense so everything he would would be in service to the defense industry when he has no idea how that guy ticks. I criticize him for calling Manchin and Senima a bad faith actors because they are not in lock step with the rest of the party , I never commented on any Republicans and I am not going to call everyone of them that because I don't know all of them but i do believe most of them are at least in the Senate. So I don't know how you get I am giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt, I have never said anything like that. You need to actually read what I have been saying to him, I have been specific on my issues with his rhetoric and its not reminiscent of conservative judges.
Please show me were I have ever said DC politicians deserve the benefit of the doubt? I don't give any the benefit of the doubt but I also don't paint them as self dealers because they don't agree with with me. Asked and answered.
Surprisingly, the Texas Workforce Commission does not prohibit the number of hours and consecutive days that employers can require their employees who are 16 or older to work without giving them a day of rest. Texas days of rest law only applies to workers in the retail sector. Texas Minimum wage hasn't changed since 2009. Production for peanuts. Work 'em hard, as many hours as you want, and as many days as you want if you aren't in retail. Big oil, slave labor. .
As I've said, I think the Federal minimum wage needs to be moderately raised and states need to decide what's best from them.
Anybody that thinks 7.25 is even close to an adequate wage for anything is out of their damn mind, or just a selfish POS. Europe has a minimum wage double or even triple that and their whoppers don't cost much more, if at all, than they do here. Companies have been using these scare tactics for years in this country "dear god, not higher wages. it will kill us all". But companies still need labor, even uneducated, low skill labor, it just cuts into their profit margins. I tend to agree 15 is too much, but it's a lot closer to excusable than 7.25. If I were making the call it would be around 10 or 11, and I think competition will drive up all wages organically once a new floor is set. Capitalism needs reasonable restrictions if it is gonna function.
Plus every city and state has different cost of living economics. Minimum wage wasn’t meant for long term career positions anyways
There will always be a segment of the population who does not have the ability to do anything beyond menial labor. There will always be people who are dependent on min wage jobs to sustain a living. It's very simple if you work 40+ hours a week even for the most mundane task of lifting a box and moving it to another position, you are dedicating 40 hours of your life for someone else and unless you believe in slavery, those people deserve compensation that allows them the basics of clean housing, water, utilities, high quality education for their children, healthcare etc. No one works 40+ hours as a hobby. They need those wages to sustain a life. And unless you believe that these people should never have children in a forceful manner, they will procreate and it would be highly unpragamtic for society to leave the children of these low wage earners less resources to develop their young brains cresting another generation of min wage workers.
I don't really agree with this all jobs should not afford you wages to sustain a life, That makes no sense every job would have to be corporate and would gut entrepreneurship and mom and pops. It also does not take into account housing and grocery cost.
