No, you can very much disagree with me politically and not be stupid enough to buy into the "free stuff" pitches from the fringe left.
Absolutely, poor people view that as a raise or "free money" despite the fact that minimum wage increases tend to make them more poor. People had more purchasing power back when the minimum wage was .75 an hour than they do today, the idea that you can give people at the bottom more purchasing power by artificially raising the floor is incredibly foolish. You could make the minimum wage $1000 an hour and there would be absolutely no benefit to anyone at the bottom.
Source? I'm confused as to how anyone could see a WAGE as 'Free Money' was there some poll on this? I mean anyone that says this must not know the definitions of 'Wage' and 'Free' This doesn't really prove anything though. If people have to work two jobs just to have a place to live and food to eat that means something is wrong. You can continue to call these people dumb for wanting to...you know...not work like slaves day in and day out. I'm pretty sure that's going to go as well as when Democrats called Trump voters stupid. So by all means, continue.
So you are saying that you are confused as to how stupid people would view being paid more money for the same job as "free money"? Really? LOL, yeah, that's exactly what we always hear from socialists, a history of nothing but failure doesn't prove anything. If we keep doing the same thing, eventually it'll work! I'll call those people dumb for supporting policies that will lead to lower purchasing power....them "working like slaves" only to afford less due to bad policy. This has been the case every time they've raised the minimum wage, it'll be the case after we get a $15 minimum wage and the poverty level will be over 31K a year with people arguing that they need to increase the minimum wage to $30 an hour so as to not be a "slave wage". The minimum wage and the poverty level are inexorably linked, you raise one, you raise the other. Dumb people never seem to learn.
Glad it was struck down, but I'm disappointed generally that gerrymandering can really only be defeated when it is race-based. All gerrymandering is a problem. Having a district map drawing process that is structurally vulnerable to gerrymandering is a problem. It used to be that politicians could really only pull it off by drawing racial lines, but data-mining is getting better and better. Going forward, politicians won't need to consider race at all in gerrymandering their districts. And the law apparently says that's okay. Who is running the show here, politicians or voters? I agree with you on this part. My liberal friends always seem so happy when these progressives win primaries. But, they're facing a buzzsaw in some of these general elections. I see the Democratic party polarizing in reaction to the Republican party polarizing. There's some people in the middle that may be very open to voting against the current incarnation of Republicanism, but they can be scared away by these progressive candidates. This doesn't strike me as good strategy for the Democrats. Maybe they'd leave some Berners not wanting to vote at all, but they could gobble up everyone in the middle, including a lot of disaffected old-school Republicans, by nominating centrists. Instead they are taking this perilous approach. I actually like a lot of the policy stands of the unapologetic socialists like Ocasio-Cortez. But the first priority needs to be to take back control of Congress from Trumpian Republicans. If they screw that up because of their ardor for a $15 minimum wage, I don't know what to say.
Wow, $15 Minumum wage is now equated to socialism... Anyways, interesting that some people think corporations should vote in their best interest that people should not.
The only real rules on drawing districts are the rules in the VRA and the basic constitutional requirements around compactness and contiguity that the Supreme Court refuses to enforce. But there's nothing stopping a future Congress (or states) from adding new rules. It just hasn't been done. Even though the Constitution mandates that states draw districts, in the same clause it grants Congress supremacy over federal elections. Congress could mandate non-partisan redistricting if it wanted. Congress could also move election day to Tuesday, mandate early voting, mandate same day registration, etc.. If the Democrats regain control of government, this has to be a priority.
I just spelled out for you why poor people voting for a minimum wage increase is voting against their own best interest.....for the most part they are just too dumb to know that. They merely see "free money" and vote for it, which is why we've had minimum wage increase after minimum wage increase only to see purchasing power continue to decline.
Yeah! It's all so simple! The minimum wage should be $3 It was once 75 cents and it was better for everyone!
Minimum wage increases is a manual process for Congress and not tacked to inflation. So, it has always lagged inflation and declines in real dollars (except for a spike in the early-90s when it was manually increased). Purchasing power declines not because minimum wage is self-defeating, but because conservative lawmakers don't ever want to increase it.
There's absolutely scenarios where things would be better for everyone if the minimum wage was lower. Toying with the floor just inflates costs everywhere and can easily make things worse. Are things better today with a $7.25 minimum wage and a $25,000 poverty level for a family of 4 or were things better in 1980 with a $3.10 minimum wage and a $6,700 poverty level for a family of 4? An idiot would think that the more money they get per hour would mean things would be better for them, but that's not always the case....and honestly hasn't been the case when looking at minimum wage increases.....but I guess if we keep doing the same thing eventually it'll be a good thing right?
Increasing the minimum wage CAUSES inflation, so if you tie minimum wage increases to inflation, you'll literally always be increasing the minimum wage because you'll always be triggering more inflation. Like I said before, you could make the minimum wage $1000 an hour and you wouldn't have increased purchasing power for those making minimum wage, you'd have only drastically increased inflation to where a family of 4 couldn't live on 4 million dollars a year. It would be a "slave wage"
The reality is that people work full-time jobs and can't support themselves and certainly can't afford healthcare. That's the reality. You can argue on if $7.25 was better or 3.10 was better but that's relative to the time. In today's time, earning 7.25 is not enough, of course the purchasing power is going to be low because you can't purchase anything after you are done paying rent, bills, and food. The point of raising the minimum wage is so that people who work full time jobs can have a somewhat decent life, it's not about making everyone millionaires. Again, you can keep calling these people idiots, I do hope your GOP candidates follow suit, I imagine it backfiring when you call hardworking americans dumb for not wanting to live paycheck to paycheck.
