Well, you see, that single mom (half of which were never married, the other half were divorced, separated, or widowed) made bad decisions in their life, and thus feel entitled...
fwiw, shortly after the video was released to the public, the coupon-cutting Congresswoman's office received many calls/emails from her constituents (from Irvine, CA) as to where in her district is the rent for an one bedroom is only for $1,600.
Entitlement refers to: Moving to an expensive area when you earn that area's minimum wage and have a child as a single mom, then expecting that firm to ignore the market, thousands of other candidates who can have that job, and bend over backwards to suit your personal decisions. I have a younger cousin who moved to a pricey part of Arizona to be close to work with a startup. Starting off, he doesn't make enough money to justify it. So he doesn't lease a car, has 3 roommates (pays low rent as a result), plus takes the steps necessary to not start a family with his gf. While working to advance in his career. That is called making sacrifices and not having entitlement. Ultimately, he will not be punished for thinking things through. As far as the rest of your post, you missed the point. $500-700 would require new developments , not existing ones. 1. "Tiny" homes or pods in communities connected to sewage/water 2. Clean communal living spaces with shared kitchens and common areas - https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2...l-architecture-bali-indonesia_dezeen_sq_2.jpg Developing 1-2 bedroom apartments while expecting them to be priced lower is unsustainable, a waste of resources and financially cripples those not making enough who are forced to live there. This is an out of the box issue that requires out of the box thinking, but practical and affordable solutions are available.
How do you know the single mom working at Chase Bank as a teller "moved into an expensive area"? Maybe that's where she has lived there all her life? And what are you calling her "personal decisions?" Having a child? Wanting to work as a teller at a bank? And now you are suggesting new developments to be planned, approved, and built to solve this single mom working as a teller at Chase's current problem? Tiny pods and communal living communities in Indonesia? Seriously? Neither of these solutions has a chance of being approved.
Again, your lack of vision and short sightedness is not my problem. Not of your non sequiturs have anything to do with her willingly taking a job at that price point in a very pricy area like Irvine -regardless of whether she was born there or not. Your suggestion of raising her salary to what, $20/hr (Which won't change anything) and pricing down the market so it can be taken advantage of, over developed and exploited is not a solution. Taking a train to work from a low rent area is the future of a planet where humans encroach on ecosystems and destroy whatever gives them life. Enjoy the whining, you'll be doing it all your life.
In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” https://www.thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ I'm surprised wealth inequality hasn't yet been mentioned in this conversation, as it is at the heart of the topic. There are 9 individual humans in this world that possess more wealth than half of the world's population together. There is NO justification for that imbalance. Those 9 people, nor their families for many, many generations, cannot spend that much capital if such was their goal. No, they continue to work to build their sums higher. Yet we have countless people who want to earn a living wage but struggle and often fail. Set a minimum wage so that everyone who works, everyone who exerts themselves in an occupation, earns a living wage for themselves and their family. It is not the ultra-wealthy who sustain the economy. They multiply the coins in their hordes and revel in the growing numbers, but they spend a tiny fraction of it, despite the opulence with which they surround themselves. The bottom 99% of the income scale (there's a phrase) spend the bulk, if not the entirety, of their income into the economy. This is the churning of monies that is the economy. Those who accumulate, who pull wealth out of the economy are parasites to the extent that they do not feed back into it. If we will fund the best system of public education feasible in order to supply industry with quality labor, and if we require a living wage for those willing to work, and if we promote civility, and social and environmental responsibility, the world will benefit greatly. Sense of self-worth, regard for others, standard of living will rise. Crime will fall. Surely this is logical. Yes, there is a small segment that will not work. I have no idea how many of that number is due to factors such as mental illness or due to sheer laziness, and I do not at this time have suggestions to deal with the latter.
Not a conservative, but the minimum wage / housing conundrum gets solved individually with roommates, discounted and substandard rental apartments and commuting in from less densely populated and lower cost areas. You've got some other assumptions in there: like the coal miner stuff, that seems more like commentary or reused talking points than anything needing to be addressed. Upper income earners could hypothetically compromise on their pay to help increase the minimum wage at individual companies, middle income earners could back away from local housing policies against multi-family units or evenly distributed section 8 subsidies on individual units or homes in their own communities to address housing costs and chip away at high-poverty high crime areas.
Which is one of the problems, the minimum wage has a market distorting effect like any price fixing, not just increasing unemployment, but the run on effect of having more supply of low skilled workers is a centering of wages around that minimum wage, effectively depressing the incomes of those who could earn a little more without minimum wage (pulling more than would otherwise from the "could survive on this" into the "couldn't survive on this") To give a numerical example, with a $10 minimum wage, the jobs worth $8 won't exist, the jobs worth $9 will get $10, but the jobs worth $11 will also get $10 as the increased supply of workers put downward pressure, and that downward pressure will continue until you get to the seller's market jobs (who will see an inversed effect as they benefit from downward pressure on buyers market jobs). Over a long period of time following this sort of patterns, combined with the the unemployment targets used by the current reserve bank systems, one would expect to see a large divergence of incomes between those two groups as the effects compound, dependent on overall growth, leading to "seller's market" jobs earning increasingly more of that growth and "buyers market" earning increasingly less.... Note : Seller's market - They have skills, that the employers need, and hence the worker is "selling" and hence the workers is in control of their labor market (e.g. nba player). Buyer's market - The employer has jobs that the workers need and said workers skills aren't important enough to differentiate themselves and hence the employer controls the market (e.g. cash register).
Back when we could have civil discussions regarding major issues without partisan problems. I miss that period of time...
Why are you so scared of logic? Why can't you stop it with your echo chamber and start listening to the people who know based on reading Daily Caller and Breitbart? Don't you know that is the only place to find the truth and if you go anywhere else you're a stupid closed-minded illogical liberal!
[Premium Post] In fairness, Daily Caller and Breitbart were dead-on accurate for 2 years of reporting on the fake Russian collusion story. And almost every other media outlet was wrong. So there's that. GOOD DAY
Daily Caller and Breitbart are "Nonsense damaging to public discourse". https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg
Private NYC book store chain (four stores) says it needs government help or else it will soon go out of business. Excerpt: Book Culture owner Chris Doeblin wrote an open letter to various city officials today beseeching them for help keeping the four Book Culture locations (three are in Manhattan, one is in Long Island City) open. "Our four stores are in danger of closing soon and we need financial assistance or investment on an interim basis to help us find our footing. This is true in spite of the fact that business has been good and we are widely supported and appreciated," he wrote. "In the last 30 months the payroll costs for Book Culture have risen by 50% and it has been difficult to adapt quickly enough. We have now made the structural changes to our company and the cuts that will allow us to move ahead profitably once we find the financial resources we need." He continued: . . . Doeblin blamed payroll cost increases on the city's minimum wage raise, which he says increased hourly wages for his employees "from $10 to $15.25 since December 2016" and forced him to initiate layoffs and reorganizing. (Book Culture also had a battle with employees over low pay during a unionization effort in 2014.) But he surprisingly doesn't blame his business struggle on rising rents: "Our landlords have been helpful in opening, developing and considering rent that can work." https://gothamist.com/2019/06/24/ow...2LN-oxH5r7xSR0fauvmBnLXKh5YeAexlEAYVUMpLnkRVk
"They terk yer jerbs". Many regressive illiberals do not have such sentiments towards the offshoring (i.e. "automation") of manufacturing jobs. But if wages begin to stagnate or decline due to immigration, suddenly anyone voicing opposition to immigration is seen as "racist". Why is that?
