ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC join in the cover up of Gov Cuomo

[Fau Teixeira]

You're joking, right?  Tell me you are joking.

You cannot seriously believe that a bill - a $15 minimum wage bill, no less! - that did not have enough votes to pass because of a lack of Democratic support would be pushed over the finish line by Republicans.  That is not an even remotely credible claim.

I'm with you spider. you're spot on here. which is why you put up a $15 dollar minimum wage bill for a vote .. and who votes against it votes against it .. that's the nature of the beast.. then you primary them if they in your party and seriously blocking a law that over 70% of the population approve of. Or you know .. propose $15  .. negotiate with the opposition and compromise at $13.

Govern. Don't just chuck it out because you really were only paying lip service to it. We all know that the companies that bankrolled your campaign really don't want to see it happen. And they're your real constituents whenever there's a conflict with a populist position.

[pondwater]

I know what overruling the parliamentarian is.  I also know eliminating the filibuster.  I get it totally.

If you overrule, you can include $15 in the COVID bill.  But it goes down (potentially).  Correct.
If you eliminate the fillibuster, you can get whatever you need on 50 votes.  Also true.

Eliminating the filibuster is possible, when tied to something like voting rights.  You're not getting 60 votes to pass that, so you can encourage Manchin and Sinema to fall to party lines...pick THAT as your spot.  Die on that hill, is what I'm saying.

As for the $15 passing stand-alone: I think it's definitely possible, but probably not likely.  It's not a democratic idea and could be introduced independent of party with bipartisan support.  It's got support among voting people, in general.  The Trump base is a weird animal.  They aren't Paul Ryan conservatives.

Any kind of $15 minimum wage should be in tiers related to age and/or work experience with a requirement to hire a certain amount of employees in each tier. If two people are hired on the same day, a kid in 10th grade shouldn't be making the same amount as someone middle age who's been in the workforce for 15 years.

[Dave Gray]

I'm with you spider. you're spot on here. which is why you put up a $15 dollar minimum wage bill for a vote .. and who votes against it votes against it .. that's the nature of the beast.. then you primary them if they in your party and seriously blocking a law that over 70% of the population approve of. Or you know .. propose $15  .. negotiate with the opposition and compromise at $13.

Yes, and that strategy makes sense, but not as part of the COVID bill.

Within the COVID bill, they'll vote against it because the parliamentarian recommended against it, because it's not COVID, because the bill is too big and expensive.  It will get muddy.

If you get rid of the fillibuster, you can run a straight up/down on just the $15, it will have a chance of getting GOP support OR DEM support for opponents.

[Spider-Dan]

As for the $15 passing stand-alone: I think it's definitely possible, but probably not likely.  It's not a democratic idea and could be introduced independent of party with bipartisan support.  It's got support among voting people, in general.  The Trump base is a weird animal.  They aren't Paul Ryan conservatives.

This is delusional.

It is true that the Trump base is not Paul Ryan conservatives; Paul Ryan conservatives have policy goals.
Trumpists' only policy goal is owning the libs.  They would have no reason at all to sign on to any Democratic bill.

[Fau Teixeira]

Any kind of $15 minimum wage should be in tiers related to age and/or work experience with a requirement to hire a certain amount of employees in each tier. If two people are hired on the same day, a kid in 10th grade shouldn't be making the same amount as someone middle age who's been in the workforce for 15 years.

The first part of this is specifically against the law. Age is a protected class you cannot discriminate against.

The 2nd part just makes no sense. The job is the job .. if it pays $15 an hour, it pays $15 an hour .. unless you can negotiate more for yourself.

Your entire post is actually very much against the spirit of capitalism and free enterprise. So you want government now to set some sort of age tiers that private companies must hire against by law?
I'm gonna assume you're not a socialist, so that puts you squarely in the right wing government control of business camp. Congratulations, you're a fascist.

[Dave Gray]

Maybe.  If it were a dem thing, I'd agree.  But I don't think the minimum wage is a dem thing.

It's pretty popular on the ends of both sides, but not in the middle.  I think the stand-alone $15 has something like 70% approval.

I mean Josh Hawley supported a $15 wage for companies with 1 billion in revenue.  And he was attacked for it and accused of cowtowing to the Trump base.

I am not saying it would pass -- but if you just ran it by itself (because you need to ditch the fillibuster anyway for voting rights reform), you would at least see and could use those "no" votes in rural areas to get some blue collar votes back.

[Spider-Dan]

Dave, a $15 minimum wage doesn't have nearly as much public approval as universal background checks for gun purchases, which is usually north of 90%.  How many Senate Republicans do you think would vote for that?

Polling only means so much.

[Dave Gray]

How many Senate Republicans do you think would vote for that?

No idea.

I think you might be missing my point.  Some of these Republicans say they will vote for it or are gray-areaed and will vote against it because it's part of a larger package they can't support.  If you run these popular ideas as straight up/down votes, you can either squeeze a few votes out OR force a situation where they have to answer to their constituents.

So, sure -- they may vote against background checks, but then they'd be targeted for TV ads in close districts, if they're trying to run as moderates.

They would either have to vote for the stuff or pay a political price -- where as part of a bigger bill where they need 60 to pass, it's a bed of nails with lots of excuses.

[pondwater]

The first part of this is specifically against the law. Age is a protected class you cannot discriminate against.

The 2nd part just makes no sense. The job is the job .. if it pays $15 an hour, it pays $15 an hour .. unless you can negotiate more for yourself.

Your entire post is actually very much against the spirit of capitalism and free enterprise. So you want government now to set some sort of age tiers that private companies must hire against by law?
I'm gonna assume you're not a socialist, so that puts you squarely in the right wing government control of business camp. Congratulations, you're a fascist.

Good don't base it on age, base it on SS work credits. SS work credits aren't a protected class and that would probably work more accurately anyhow.

Anyhow, thanks for making my point for me. And it makes plenty of sense. Most hourly jobs in the pay range we're talking you don't negotiate anything. You take it or leave it. The only way to make more is through raises and bonuses.

Say currently a job pays entry level employees with no experience $10/hr. And you have a 36 year old single mother of 3 who's been at the company for 6 years and worked her way up to $14-16/hr. If they raise the minimum wage to $15/hr who's getting the raise? The teenage entry level employee making $10/hr or the single mother of 3 with 6 years experience already making $15/hr? You're crazy if you think the single mother is getting a $5 raise to match the entry level employee's raise to the new $15/hr. She ain't getting shit. Then what you'll have is an entry level employee and an employee with 6 years experience making roughly the same amount.

Before my parents died, for close to 15 years I worked for a major US retail company headquartered in Boca Raton. Although I worked in a different state, I dealt with corporate frequently. Over the past 10 years I've seen raises and benefits get cut and cut and cut. These MFs ain't spending a penny if they don't have to, in fact they're taking shit away. Actually, before I left I saw them hiring a bunch of entry level employees, training them, and slowly get rid of the tenured employees because $10/hour is cheaper than $15-16/hr.  The jobs we're talking about aren't rocket science. Most trained entry level employees are just as effective as tenured employees after the 3 month mark and much cheaper.  What you think they gonna do if they raise minimum wage to $15. Don't think for a minute that the company won't make up the difference somewhere else that will affect all of the employees negatively, not to mention the layoffs and overall reduction in the workforce.

[Fau Teixeira]

Say currently a job pays entry level employees with no experience $10/hr. And you have a 36 year old single mother of 3 who's been at the company for 6 years and worked her way up to $14-16/hr. If they raise the minimum wage to $15/hr who's getting the raise? The teenage entry level employee making $10/hr or the single mother of 3 with 6 years experience already making $15/hr? You're crazy if you think the single mother is getting a $5 raise to match the entry level employee's raise to the new $15/hr. She ain't getting shit. Then what you'll have is an entry level employee and an employee with 6 years experience making roughly the same amount.

So the reason to not raise the floor is that some people who already make more than the minimum will now make close to or at the minimum?  What kind of nonsense logic is that? That's the same logic that says that we won't find a cure for cancer because so many people have already died to cancer that curing people would be unfair. The mother of 3 in your scenario has multiple options. She can demand a raise, she can find a new job that pays better, she can join a union where collective bargaining presents her with better negotiating power.

Before my parents died, for close to 15 years I worked for a major US retail company headquartered in Boca Raton. Although I worked in a different state, I dealt with corporate frequently. Over the past 10 years I've seen raises and benefits get cut and cut and cut. These MFs ain't spending a penny if they don't have to, in fact they're taking shit away. Actually, before I left I saw them hiring a bunch of entry level employees, training them, and slowly get rid of the tenured employees because $10/hour is cheaper than $15-16/hr.  The jobs we're talking about aren't rocket science. Most trained entry level employees are just as effective as tenured employees after the 3 month mark and much cheaper.  What you think they gonna do if they raise minimum wage to $15. Don't think for a minute that the company won't make up the difference somewhere else that will affect all of the employees negatively, not to mention the layoffs and overall reduction in the workforce.

So you worked at office depot and they suck as a company. There's also a reason they're HQ'd in Boca Raton FLORIDA. Because they want to take advantage of being a right to work state and they make it hard for their employees to form unions.

You're so close to this, post after post you keep describing how these big companies abuse their workers and how the "government" needs to pass laws to dictate how companies should behave. You will eventually arrive at the fact that this can be fixed by unionizing and by workers negotiating collectively with management.  It's not a coincidence that the decline in union membership went hand in hand with the increase in the income gap and an increase in poverty.

[pondwater]

So the reason to not raise the floor is that some people who already make more than the minimum will now make close to or at the minimum?  What kind of nonsense logic is that? That's the same logic that says that we won't find a cure for cancer because so many people have already died to cancer that curing people would be unfair. The mother of 3 in your scenario has multiple options. She can demand a raise, she can find a new job that pays better, she can join a union where collective bargaining presents her with better negotiating power.

1st, you don't demand anything at these type jobs. These companies feel that you're lucky to have a job. 2nd, if the floor is raised then these type workers won't just be able to go find better paying jobs because the floor is now the ceiling also because the companies aren't going to willingly open their wallet after you already forced them to pay more. Raises and bonuses will go the way of the dinosaur.

So you worked at office depot and they suck as a company. There's also a reason they're HQ'd in Boca Raton FLORIDA. Because they want to take advantage of being a right to work state and they make it hard for their employees to form unions.

Most companies are greedy and suck. That's not unique to OD.

You're so close to this, post after post you keep describing how these big companies abuse their workers and how the "government" needs to pass laws to dictate how companies should behave. You will eventually arrive at the fact that this can be fixed by unionizing and by workers negotiating collectively with management.  It's not a coincidence that the decline in union membership went hand in hand with the increase in the income gap and an increase in poverty.

I don't have a problem with unions, I'm all for them. However, I don't think that entry level employees, many of which it may be their first job, should be making $15/hr. It would be very easy to make a tiered system that's fair to everyone. Put the floor at $10/hr UP TO $15/hr based on SS credits. You can earn a maximum of 4 SS credits a year up to a maximum of 40 credits.
 
0-3 credits = $10.00/hr
04 credits = $10.50/hr
08 credits = $11.00/hr
12 credits = $11.50/hr
16 credits = $12.00/hr
20 credits = $12.50/hr
24 credits = $13.00/hr
28 credits = $13.50/hr
32 credits = $14.00/hr
36 credits = $14.50/hr
40 credits = $15.00/hr

That would actually solve the issue of raises up until the $15/hr mark. See, that's the problem. I don't have an issue with someone making $15/hr if they actually deserve it. I have an open mind and would be willing to compromise on the issue. But you're just stuck on giving everyone $15/hr and I can't agree with that. Some slacker clown that jumps from job to job, can't hold a job, gets fired/quits all the time, and just all around bad employees don't deserve $15/hr. They should have to earn their way to that mark. Like I said, a slacker clown entry level employee shouldn't be making the same as someone who's been in the workforce for 10 years.

[Fau Teixeira]

Then we'll just disagree .. i think $15 today is the bare minimum for the part time high schooler and most people should be making over $20/hr

[Tenshot13]

Then we'll just disagree .. i think $15 today is the bare minimum for the part time high schooler and most people should be making over $20/hr

[stinkfish]

Why do so many people seem to think that $15.00 an hour, which is, $31,200 a year is a lot of money? It's barely sustainable.
Mind you,I'm not looking to debate the whole thing. I just want to point out that $15.00 an hour is some sort promised land to some, and to others it's ridiculous to pay people THAT MUCH MONEY. It's a pittance.

[CF DolFan]

Why do so many people seem to think that $15.00 an hour, which is, $31,200 a year is a lot of money?

It's not a lot of money for someone who works a job worthy of getting paid but to a kid who flips burgers, bags groceries, or sells popcorn at a movie theatre that's a lot of money.  If you want to make more then you should work at jobs that pay more than $15 an hour. I've said it before and I'll repeat ... there are tons of work in construction and manufacturing where there is opportunity to grow and succeed if a person wants it. The problem is no one wants to work any longer. They want to do an easy ass job and get paid like the carpenter or electrician's helper. Next they will want to be paid like the carpenter or electrician.