$15 min wage makes sense regardless if it's coming out of greedy corporate profits. It's about having equitable (rather than diminishing with inflation) purchasing power for the lowest paid workers.

https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/sta...80135255298048

i wonder what kind of google ads they show on classified internet searches

A $17 min wage would be better.

This is ridiculous. If anything, power should be even more spread out throughout the states. This is still a country and the states that comprise it matter. I don't give a **** that people are frustrated because the person that they wanted to win didn't win. So now the goal is to change the rules? If that's the case, I assume you will be understanding of the nuclear option being used if Gorsuch doesn't get 60 votes, right?

The founders didn't set up this system because of some idealized notion of "the states" deserving to have power. They set it up so that slave owners could have more power than other people.

One person, one vote. It's that simple. PEOPLE vote, not inanimate pieces of land. You'll notice that the minority regime that has taken over the White House is having difficulty getting anything done--that's partly because the people DO NOT support this regime. They have seized power through weakness in the system, but democracy depends on the will of the people being represented--this requires the principle of one person, one vote to be respected.

Other Candidates 7,804,213
Hillary Clinton 65,844,610
Donald Trump* 62,979,636

*Some votes may have been acquired through Treason and/or direct interference from the FBI in violation of the Hatch Act

Do poorly paid jobs need doing?

Leahy said he won't filibuster but will vote no

lol democrats

I googled classified internet and found out about SIPRNet and green doors. Four million people have access, but the head of the House Intelligence Committee had to go WH to open the green door. Ok, then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet

The Federal Government is the government of all the people in the US and anything other than one person one vote is ****ing idiotic. It's a completely separate issue than power being spread to the states. At this point a much smaller Federal Government and letting the blue states stop subsidizing the red states and just handle things themselves looks pretty good. We'd have single payer and free college in California in about a week.

Dafuq?

Complaining about Russian involvement with Trump: Sure, why not. It's ongoing, apparently getting more supported each day.

Complaining about how unfair it is that people found out that Peter Daou is a universally despised ******* because of Russians and how that makes the election unfair: NO


People run absolute ****ing fiction against candidates as oppo all the time, that's not unfair, that's not rigging. Illegally acquired facts are more fair than that!

That kinda sounds like a confession to burglary.

I'm wary of putting too much cost to employers that hire on the lower skill workers. Moving healthcare to single payer thereby reducing the cost of employment will happen eventually and help the low skill worker. off the e You can require Wal Mart to provide more benefits and a $15/hr min wage which will provide Amazon a greater competitive advantage and less employment/opportunity for those without a college degree to work their way up from cashier or stockroom to a decent living in store management or at least attain/demonstrate the skills necessary (show up, play nice, don't tell your boss to **** off when he irritates you) to keep productive.

Good point.

Well, it would be a stretch to call the results totally conclusive, but there are a lot of studies suggesting that when you pay workers a living wage, they're actually MORE likely to stay at the same job. Which means they end up getting promoted, gaining more responsibilities and more benefits, rather than just working somewhere for a few months before getting fired or moving on.

http://www.superiortelegram.com/news...t-affect-taxes
There are other benefits as well. Paying workers a living wage allows them to rely less on government spending like food stamps and public housing. It allows people to spend money in their local communities which can be a very positive thing in the long run. And many small businesses actually do support raising the minimum wage--it's these lobbying groups for huge corporations like the National Restaurant Association that are deadset against it.

It's news when some bozo is caught jumping the fence, a committee chair doing it and not getting caught is Houdini.

People are legit wondering why suddenly all these Trumpkins are volunteering to testify before a committee being run by this piece of ****.

I would also move to make things like health care, unemployment payments, family leave, higher education, food support, ubi to public entitlements before raising the minimum wage.

I still support raising the minimum wage in the current environment though.

I wouldn't mind seeing more generous government support for the working poor with that cost borne by the tax payer. I think that will best preserve employment opportunity for the least skilled.

I posted this in SE but nobody really bit on it.

It might be stupid, I dunno. But like 1/2 this country lives in close proximity to cities near a coast, everyone is trying to cram around the top 30 or so cities because that is where many of the good paying jobs are. We have tons of cheap, habitable land that seemingly no one uses.

Why don't we try to have some type of incentive for poor/middle class older people to move to a retirement community inland where land is cheaper and with network/economies of scale effects we drive down the cost of helping these people as well as helping them live dignified lives in the last stage of their life. Then medical community moves there, then they need restaurants, shopping, etc like everywhere else. It would almost be like building for retirement what las vegas is for tourism/gambling. Obviously moving isn't mandatory but given the care you can get at the cost, it would hopefully be a pretty nice deal. Especially for those who are really struggling.

Then you would have more housing/land in cities for the productive class that need that housing as well.

It's a balance. Amazon is going to decimate retail employment in the next decade I am wary of speeding that along.

Did you feel wary when big box retail put small stores out of business?

I would rather generally have some separation from the private and public sectors (other than safety, environment, child labor, worker protections - things which I would see as policing really) and grow the public sector. But, if that can't happen and it has to be done by controlling private markets, then so be it. Tax deliveries if you have to in order to protect retail jobs.