The Progressive Agenda means the Right to Earn a Living Wage for All Americans.

Regardless, it is being paid to unskilled labor. The higher the wage paid to the unskilled, the higher the corresponding wage has to be paid to the skilled worker or there will be discontent in the workplace and the skilled worker will most likely leave the job for a better paycheck elsewhere. Costs to the employer will rise and the result may be layoffs for the unskilled as prices rise. Employment expense is at least 75% of an employer's overhead.

 

it is a simple cost of living adjustment. reorganize to make better use of labor.

 

The best way is for the unskilled person to learn asap and get a wage increase which usually happens when he/she is prompt and reliable. I think that the money was coming out of your pocket you might have a different viewpoint. It is
very easy to spend the other guy's money and I understand this thinking.

 

social services cost around fourteen an hour; the minimum wage has to beat that, to be rational under Any form of Capitalism.

 

Here's more:

 

Got any ideas on how to accomplish that?

 

Let's understand that the minimum wage is a learning wage and not an earing wage. An employer cannot be expected to pay $15 per
hour to someone with no skills. Maybe in California where the incomes are very high in order to live and where the cost to live is astronomical.
When the skill is achieved, the wage increases according to ability, and that is rational under any form of Capitalism.

 

That recession was as close to a depression as you can get. In fact, some of the barometers showed depression. Those 'rest of you' who expected more were lucky to get what you got because we were very close to slipping into a depression. So be thankful that there was an upswing at all and it was indeed increasing in speed when Trump got elected. Trump unnecessarily goosed an already rising economy which may come back to haunt him.

 

As a liberal either an increase on the negative tax for the lower classes or a ubi is preferable. I'd rather not artificially raise the work supply demand curve. this is going to cause more issues than it would ever solve. Either provides welfare and pumps Money directly into the hands of the biggest relative consumers. Of those two ubi is preferable as there is no stigma between classes. Everyone done gets the same. As well as other benefits. and you could work it out to effectively provide the same benefits as a $15 minimum wage.

You then could just get rid of the minimum wage entirely and just rely on collective bargaining and unions as it is no longer nessecary.

 

Not Obama all by himself, but yes the Democrats. The chairman of the bank oversight committee, Barney Frank, was responsible for this pressure on Fannie and Freddy. George Bush allowed it to continue unabated when it was slapping him across the face, and did nothing to stop it until it was too late. Obama was a signature in the lawsuit. However, Obama did work to get us out of it and on the road to recovery.
Clinton relaxed regulations which didn't help matters, and the tech madness inticed naive people to buy stocks. They bought expensive houses, RVs and big boats. When it crashed, they lost everything and there were suicides, some of which are still happening today due to the Clinton recession.

 

Righties kill me. They complain about the homeless and then shoot down the idea of a living wage.

In places like Seattle or San Francisco, a small apartment can cost from $2000- $5000 a month = $24-$60K a year.

With a $15 minimum wage, you make 30K a year. You might bring home enough to pay rent, after taxes. But that's it. And righties complain about that being too high.

Minimum wage should probably be based on the median income for that area. You can't expect to pay people the same in small-town Iowa, as opposed to a major city.

 

The homeless aren't homeless because they aren't making enough money.

The homeless are homeless because they are alcoholics, drug addicts and/or mentally ill.

 

I can see how that could be confusing. The problem is that you're thinking in a box of government as god. There's a problem with homeless, so let's pass a law that fixes that problem. Oh, there's a problem over there with a high cost of living? Let's pass a law that fixes that problem. Oh, there's a problem with paying for this? Let's pass a law that makes the rich pay enough in taxes so that we can pay for it all. Oh, the rich are leaving and taking their money? Let's pass a law that makes it illegal for the rich to leave. Suddenly no more rich people because there's no incentive to be rich? Let's pass a law that makes it illegal for the rich to just stop working...

I lived in the bay area when small somewhat grubby studios or rooms with shared facilities could be rented for a few hundred a month. What happened is that the city governments decided that renters should have rights. Inbetween ridiculous eviction processes and rent control, that added to the costs, which raised the prices. Suddenly it wasn't just a question of paying the rent a month at a time, but first, last, deposit, credit check, eviction check, referrals from respected landlords, etc. etc. etc. and all that costs a lot of money.

So no complaining about high rents. Sorry, but it's just a very natural reaction to stupid laws. Lefties wanted it and they got it.

What you are doing is just throwing out numbers like 2k to 5k for a small apartment, 30k a year on minimum wage and saying that's just not good enough. That's fine and dandy, but you might want to look into reasons why things are so expensive and wages so low, rather than looking to the government to click their ruby slippers and make things all better through the magic of government.

Conservatives typically look at underlying reasons. You need to do the same.

 

Please note G. Bush was trying to head this off as early as 2005 but congress stone walled him. While ole Barn lied through his teeth on national TV.

 

Lefties kill me. They think that because an addict WANTS to live in one of the most expensive cities in America, they should be funded to do so. Because ... feelings.

 

In order to make any wage, regardless of how much it is, one has to work.... there may be some homeless that do work, but there are a great number that don't, or can't due to mental issues or addiction issues. So the FMW doesn't even come into play, as much as you might want it to.

 

Don't forget that it's usually Progressives who insist on (and manage to change) super strict building codes etc, in the interests of the environment, or their pretty view of the ocean. That stuff has impacted housing affordability massively. In my country, the govt is attempting to build a large international airport on the fringe of a capital city, which happens to be an impoverished area. Lot's of minimum wage people, and quite a bit of unemployment. The construction and on-going running of this airport will employ thousands of local people. But who is protesting it vociferously? Of course, the raving Progs living in nearby leafy middle class surburbs. The very people who constantly harp on about 'the poor', and how terrible the rich are, etc etc etc.

It's hard to imagine being so dense that none of this is obvious to you, and so you go about complaining as though none of it is self-inflicted.

 

The only way to CURE anything. All else is band aids.

 

1. Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of ... - George W. Bush
   https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html
   Oct 09, 2008 · In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.
   
   
2. Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ...
   https://www.usnews.com/.../2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac
   Oct 06, 2008 · Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit ), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once.
   
   • Author: Michael Barone
3. Bush&#39s Calls for Financial Reform Ignored | Newsmax.com
   https://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/gse-financial-timeline/2008/09/22/id/325475
   Sep 22, 2008 · (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/0 April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."
   
   • Author: Ronald Kessler
4. Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess | RealClearMarkets
   https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/dont_blame_bush_for_subprime_m.html
   Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess. Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a …
   
   
5. Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie ...
   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/bush-administration-tried-reform-freddie-and...

 

Extremist rightwing DISINFORMATION attempting to SHIFT THE BLAME away from where it BELONGS which is entirely on the Republical/Libertarian Fiscal Malfeasance policies of DEREGULATION of the Wall Street Casino.

 

Here was the very start of the fall of the banks, by pushing banks to make loans to the poor, when they couldn't afford them.

Please catch the date of this article.



U.S. To Push Banks on Credit in Poor Areas

December 09, 1993|ROBERT A. ROSENBLATT and CHRIS KRAUL | TIMES STAFF WRITERS


WASHINGTON — The Clinton Administration, hoping to generate billions of dollars in new loans for small businesses and residents in poor and minority neighborhoods, on Wednesday unveiled proposed new rules requiring banks and thrifts to aggressively seek new customers in all parts of their communities.

Federal regulators will now be much tougher in demanding that financial institutions make credit available to the poor as well as the affluent, said Comptroller of the Currency Eugene A. Ludwig, whose recent travels have taken him from South-Central Los Angeles to a reservation in North Carolina to hear complaints about the lack of credit in low-income areas.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-...ommunity-banks

 

Peleso puts all the blame on Bush and Republicans

 

Bill Clinton admits Democrats wouldn't listen to Republicans

 

Barney Franks lies about pushing home ownership, still doing it in 2005

 

BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROVIDES HOMEBUYERS NEW PROTECTION FROM PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICE
New "Anti-Flipping" Rule Holds Lenders, Sellers and Appraisers Accountable
WASHINGTON - Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez today announced a new initiative in the Bush Administration's efforts to crack down on predatory lending. HUD published a final rule today in the Federal Register addressing property "flipping" on mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Property "flipping" occurs when a recently acquired property is resold for a considerable profit with an artificially inflated value.

"The Bush Administration is committed to maintaining a strong housing market in which consumers can feel confident that they are protected from unscrupulous practices," Martinez said. "This final rule represents a major step in our efforts to eliminate predatory lending practices."

Predatory lending results when home purchasers become unwitting victims of lenders, sellers and appraisers, often working together. The unsuspecting homebuyers either purchase homes with sales prices far in excess of the fair market value, or are substantially overcharged with costs associated with obtaining a mortgage.

The final rule, "FR-4615 Prohibition of Property Flipping in HUD's Single Family Mortgage Insurance Programs," makes recently flipped properties ineligible for FHA mortgage insurance. It also allows FHA to better manage its insurance risk by requiring additional support for a property's value when a significant increase between sales occurs. Features include:

Sale by Owner of Record: Only the owner of record may sell a home to an individual who will obtain FHA mortgage insurance for the loan; it may not involve any sale or assignment of the sales contract, a procedure often observed when the homebuyer is determined to have been a victim of predatory practices.

https://archives.hud.gov/news/2003/pr03-055.cfm