Well they're not wealthy because they're not in power. Has any small group of people ever gotten into power and then NOT become/stayed fabulously wealthy?
The Royal Family of Japan are quite poor, and were more so during the Tokugawa era, despite being the rulers of the country. Even the right to the title "sesshoo" was restricted to certain families.
There are many instances historically where a person "of the right group" (e.g. a member of the oligarchy) is used as a figurehead by the actual people who make the decision, either in the capacity of a regent or simply in the capacity of an advisor or minister.
For the first time in history, a majority of both houses are millionaires. Both sides of the aisle. Not much "of the people" left, I'm afraid.How much of that is just a function of inflation though? A million just isn't worth what it used to be.
Well, a million is still well outside the realm of normalcy for the American population. The cutoff for the top 1% by net worth is about $8 million. Being at the 95th percentile in terms of net worth would take about $1.1M. So if you are a millionaire, you are wealthier than about 19 out of twenty households in the United States.
But that's not an obscene amount of wealth any more. Another way of looking at it is that roughly 10 million households in the US (out of 200 million) are millionaires. Any club with ten million members in the US alone is not exactly highly selective. If you want extreme wealth,.... there are fewer than 150,000 households worth more than $25M, which is still more than enough to fill a large footballs stadium.
Well, they own less slaves than they used to.
From Seattle to the Bay Area: San Francisco Rides the $15 Wave by Shamus Cooke
I've nowhere else to put this, so I'll just put it here. I guess it probably goes better in the sexual politics whatevers, but there's more action here.
A site called Personalliberty.com, toted as the #1 Libertarian site (which, I'll admit, seems dubious since I've never heard of it) has an article decrying Michael Sam and being forced to accept homosexuality.
I thought libertarians were cool with the gays. Huh.
Great... Thanks meat.
Now I need to go take a shower with bleach, drink a fifth of whiskey and weep for humanity after reading that.
Whatever you do, DON'T read the comments section.
By which I mean do.
Great... Thanks meat.
Now I need to go take a shower with bleach, drink a fifth of whiskey and weep for humanity after reading that.
Whatever you do, DON'T read the comments section.
By which I mean do.
Honestly, the comments were no where near as bad as I was expecting.
Honestly, the comments were no where near as bad as I was expecting.Great... Thanks meat.
Now I need to go take a shower with bleach, drink a fifth of whiskey and weep for humanity after reading that.
Whatever you do, DON'T read the comments section.
By which I mean do.
Really? "Kill 'em all!" isn't bad?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the comments were no where near as bad as I was expecting.Really? "Kill 'em all!" isn't bad?
Depends on your expectations, doesn't it? I'd say that comment is in keeping with my general opinion and expectations of libertarians.
Horrifying. I guess the only surprising part is that the posters seem to believe that they're "Libertarians."
Really? "Kill 'em all!" isn't bad?Honestly, the comments were no where near as bad as I was expecting.Great... Thanks meat.
Now I need to go take a shower with bleach, drink a fifth of whiskey and weep for humanity after reading that.
Whatever you do, DON'T read the comments section.
By which I mean do.
Honestly, I've seen that sentiment so many times in these types of discussions, and for less divisive things than LBGT rights, that no, its pretty low end standard inflammatory rhetoric. Not to mention the first one of those I saw was responded to with a religious conservative man calling him out as going overboard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Horrifying. I guess the only surprising part is that the posters seem to believe that they're "Libertarians."
Probably 90% of the people who refer to themselves as libertarian fall into that category - absolutely sure they know what it means to be a libertarian, and absolutely wrong. "I'm libertarian!" has become little more than an excuse for incredibly irresponsible, ignorant beliefs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Horrifying. I guess the only surprising part is that the posters seem to believe that they're "Libertarians."Probably 90% of the people who refer to themselves as libertarian fall into that category - absolutely sure they know what it means to be a libertarian, and absolutely wrong. "I'm libertarian!" has become little more than an excuse for incredibly irresponsible, ignorant beliefs.
This. Even back in the 1980s, "libertarianism" seemed to be a paper-thin disguise for "antisocial, irresponsible, and self-centered" rather than "politically principled." It's only gotten worse since then.
|
Good for the GOP. States can, and do, have their own minimum wage laws. They should pass such things, not the federal government. It's a huge over-reach by the feds in the first place.Tried and found wanting. The interstate commerce clause covers this.
But please don't let facts and reason interfere with your beliefs. They'll throw you out of the Republican club if you do.
oh, they CAN do it. It doesn't mean that they SHOULD.
People slinging burgers in Alabama are less valuable than people doing the same work in, say, Washington DC, or Washington. Having the same payfloor for people working thousands of miles apart in vastly different local economies is ridiculous.
|
|
Which is why states can set a higher minimum wage as they wish. The feds set a floor. If states (or counties, cities and towns) think they need a higher one they can set their own.Good for the GOP. States can, and do, have their own minimum wage laws. They should pass such things, not the federal government. It's a huge over-reach by the feds in the first place.Tried and found wanting. The interstate commerce clause covers this.
But please don't let facts and reason interfere with your beliefs. They'll throw you out of the Republican club if you do.
oh, they CAN do it. It doesn't mean that they SHOULD.
People slinging burgers in Alabama are less valuable than people doing the same work in, say, Washington DC, or Washington. Having the same payfloor for people working thousands of miles apart in vastly different local economies is ridiculous.
My point was that having a National payfloor doesn't make sense. States can and do, have higher payfloors, but the federal gov't shouldn't be making blanket decisions for pay across the entire country.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that having a National payfloor doesn't make sense. States can and do, have higher payfloors, but the federal gov't shouldn't be making blanket decisions for pay across the entire country.Which is why states can set a higher minimum wage as they wish. The feds set a floor. If states (or counties, cities and towns) think they need a higher one they can set their own.Good for the GOP. States can, and do, have their own minimum wage laws. They should pass such things, not the federal government. It's a huge over-reach by the feds in the first place.Tried and found wanting. The interstate commerce clause covers this.
But please don't let facts and reason interfere with your beliefs. They'll throw you out of the Republican club if you do.
oh, they CAN do it. It doesn't mean that they SHOULD.
People slinging burgers in Alabama are less valuable than people doing the same work in, say, Washington DC, or Washington. Having the same payfloor for people working thousands of miles apart in vastly different local economies is ridiculous.
Extreme Disagree. If left to their own devices some states would eliminate minimum wage all together and some poor souls would take jobs working 60 hour weeks getting paid $3.00/hr and then promptly get trapped in that job because they couldn't ever scrape enough together to get upwardly mobile.
We are better as both a country and a society than to let that happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why states have democratic governments - if people don't like that, they can elect people to change the law.
You're describing the way we want it to be, not the way it is.
So... the people who make the laws are not elected by popular vote?This is why states have democratic governments - if people don't like that, they can elect people to change the law.You're describing the way we want it to be, not the way it is.
No, ALEC isn't voted into power by anyone, and yet they write a whole lot of laws.
I don't know. It seemed pretty obvious to me that there was no chance of raising the minimum wage nationally and the Democrats' attempt to do it was nothing more than a cynical ploy to build up credit with their base in 2014. [Shrugs]
I'll go with cynical ploy for $200, Alex.
As for the Overton Window, which I admit I had to look up, I remember Alexander Cockburn going on back in 2012 or something that polls showed raising the minimum wage was popular with respondents who identified with both capitalist political parties.
Maybe I'll go look for it later.
I don't know. It seemed pretty obvious to me that there was no chance of raising the minimum wage nationally and the Democrats' attempt to do it was nothing more than a cynical ploy to build up credit with their base in 2014. [Shrugs]But even as a cynical ploy, it pushed the Overton Window. The Democrats pushing a higher minimum wage helps all the local movements and makes it more likely we'll actually see one if the Democrats do well in 2014 or take over in 2016. Long game here.
I'm not sure I'd describe it as "pushing the Overton Window." The OW describes what is acceptable to the public, not politically acceptable to the party bosses. As our communist goblin points out, there are a lot of policies that are acceptable to the public that have no chance of being made law because the politicians are committed to unpopular policies. Raising the minimum wage is one of them. Immigration reform is another.
Similarly, stricter regulation of the financial industry is supported by nearly 2/3 of the population according to the various polls. 8 out of 10 support the CFPB and empowering or strengthening it. Obviously, neither of these are politically possible right now. One could, in fact, argue that gridlock is so bad that nothing is politically possible right now.
I think measures like this are actually more important not to build up credit with the Democratic base, but to isolate the Republicans. A hypothetical purple centrist is being faced with the fact that the Democrats are pushing policies that she likes, but that are being blocked by the Republicans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raising the minimum wage is usually popular, but if it's not getting talked about and there aren't votes for it and against it, it's not a political issue and there's no political pressure. Bringing it up on the national level gets it in the news and ratchets up the political pressure for it. Which, as I said, helps the local minimum wage efforts as well.
Cart before horse, imho. Fast Food Forward/SEIU strikes, Seattle campaign, Democrats go, hey, there's an issue, Congressional vote.
Anyway, back to Seattle:
Murray adds a ‘training wage’ to $15 minimum wage proposal
"We put it in the language since the agreement came out. I’ve committed that this city will advocate to get those certificates for that period of time. It’s something that initially we couldn’t get labor to agree to. I’m not sure we got them there, but we did it anyway."
Break with the Democrats!
Two articles for fun:
The Democratic Party's Future Is Awash in Dark Money
Huh, I didn't know the Koch Brothers helped set up the Democratic Leadership Council.
Jess Spear Running Against House Speaker Frank Chopp
"Spear is convinced that the progressive left currently has major influence over Seattle politics, despite a recent poll that found Socialist Alternative was the least credible group polled on the issue of raising the minimum wage. (She argues it's actually a good sign that one-sixth of the city even knows their group exists.)"
Vive le Galt!
This is why states have democratic governments - if people don't like that, they can elect people to change the law.
Wow, there's just so much misguided here I don't know where to begin.
First of all, representative democracy doesn't work that way. The vast majority of people aren't elected on a single issue, and if they were, that doesn't guarantee that they will vote that way once in office. Raising the minimum wage enjoys public support, yet it isn't happening.
Second, we don't even live in a democracy...we live in a plutocracy. See also: "Citizens" United.
So... the people who make the laws are not elected by popular vote?This is why states have democratic governments - if people don't like that, they can elect people to change the law.You're describing the way we want it to be, not the way it is.
In the case of the US President, they are not elected by popular vote. In most of the US, people vote for candidates, and the candidate who gets the most votes in a State gets ALL of that States electoral college "Elector" votes. A few times in history, such as Bush/Gore in 2000), the candidate with the most votes did not win. There have also been times where Electors did not select the candidates the people selected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29
In the US you vote for a President, but you don't elect one. That job is too important to be left to the citizens. Our whole election process is kind of a joke, especially when it comes to presidents. Any time we talk about "exporting Democracy" it is just a euphemism for the exact opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that having a National payfloor doesn't make sense. States can and do, have higher payfloors, but the federal gov't shouldn't be making blanket decisions for pay across the entire country.
There is no reason why the state government is inherently any more sensible than the federal one.
My point was that having a National payfloor doesn't make sense. States can and do, have higher payfloors, but the federal gov't shouldn't be making blanket decisions for pay across the entire country.
|
|
This is why states have democratic governments - if people don't like that, they can elect people to change the law.Which is why the country has a democratic government. If people don't like it, they can elect people to change the law: either to repeal the national minimum wage or to raise it.
The logic is the same.
You could also make the same argument you do on the state level: People slinging burgers in upstate New York don't have the same expenses as people doing the same in New York City, therefore having the states make minimum wage laws is ridiculous. Counties or towns should do it.
To which I would make the same reply.
Yes. Of course. Totally rational.
We live in a democracy, and we are allowed to have opinions, and can, in numbers have those opinions made law.
I don't like minimum wage laws in general, but I'm okay with states doing it, as it is slightly less absurd than the federal gov't doing the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that having a National payfloor doesn't make sense. States can and do, have higher payfloors, but the federal gov't shouldn't be making blanket decisions for pay across the entire country.There is no reason why the state government is inherently any more sensible than the federal one.So much for your argument that these decisions should be settled by popular vote. Raising the minimum wage is supported by 7 of 10 people in the US.I don't think either of those was his argument. Just that it should be handled on a more local level because the minimum wage should be different from state to state.
Yes, but if 70% of the US population thinks that it should not be handled locally, but universally,.... well, this is a ostensibly a democracy, right?
|
|
My point was that having a National payfloor doesn't make sense. States can and do, have higher payfloors, but the federal gov't shouldn't be making blanket decisions for pay across the entire country.There is no reason why the state government is inherently any more sensible than the federal one.
The lawmakers of Iowa probably understand Iowa better than the lawmakers of the entire country understand Iowa.
Clearly that's not something that can be proven, but it's generally the rationale for the federalist system.
|
|
Raising the minimum wage is usually popular, but if it's not getting talked about and there aren't votes for it and against it, it's not a political issue and there's no political pressure. Bringing it up on the national level gets it in the news and ratchets up the political pressure for it. Which, as I said, helps the local minimum wage efforts as well.
Now if they let up on it after this election so that it's forgotten about before there's a chance to take any action, then maybe it was just a cynical ploy.
OTOH, I'm not too fond of the idea of dismissing anything that can't be accomplished immediately as cynical ploys. There's been a lot of good progressive legislation over the years that took many tries over many years to get passed. It's an important part of politics.
Now, if the Senate had taken 50 different votes over the last 2 years about raising the minimum wage with no hope of it happening, then I'd be willing to accept "cynical ploy".
The american legislator would never engage in such irrational and cynical behavior!!! [OUTRAGE] :-o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like minimum wage laws in general, but I'm okay with states doing it, as it is slightly less absurd than the federal gov't doing the same.Now we come to it. The basic problem is that you don't like minimum wage laws. Therefore it's better to fight them one state at a time than on the federal level.
And it's easier to argue "It's a state issue" than to argue against the concept, so ...That's generally the way all the "State's rights" issues go. Of course when you can win on the federal level, "state's rights" go out the window. Witness Scalia on medical marijuana.
I agree. For example, it wasn't a heinous overreach of Federal law to prevent gay marriage, but now it's an overreach for the Fed to recognize it. Environment protection is something best left up to the states until one of the states actually does something about it, at which point Federal authority has to step in to overrule the presumptuous state (California is usually the one at fault, IIRC).
The lawmakers of Iowa probably understand Iowa better than the lawmakers of the entire country understand Iowa.
By this logic, the people of Delaware must really love giving corporations lots of rights.
You're also assuming that the lawmakers give a flying fumble about the lives of iowans, and the ones most impacted by a minimum age increase. They don't.