If you're saying that more immigrants will not cause a large loss in the wages of current residents, I agree with you. There's a lot of good evidence on that from economists. I do think, though, that a "living wage" is a bad idea. From what I've read, most people's estimates of the living wage are above $15 an hour. If that were implemented by law, low-skilled workers would have much more trouble finding jobs. Shikha, by the way, is familiar with this argument.
The minimum wage is currently $7.25/hr. That is hardly a living wage that promotes health, good nutrition and a healthy lifestyle. If you are so sure that the minimum wage doesn’t need to be higher, then I invite you to live, purposefully, on that amount of money.
I was referring to the living wage, not the minimum wage. It's true that the federal minimum wage is $7.25, but in the majority of labor markets in the country, it's above $7.25. If you want to change your argument from the original, discussing the minimum wage and not the living wage, we can do that. Just make clear what you're arguing for.
Also, it is infeasible to raise a family on one person's minimum wage, which is why people are well advised not to do it. Instead, they should live and ideally marry someone else who's making money, work their way up the productivity ladder and then and only then, have children.
Ok, ok, I get it. I seem to have conflated the topics of minimum wage vs a living wage. I advocate for a living wage because it infers that people who make less than that live on the margins, at best. Having a family is expensive and should be planned according to one’s ability to support it. But life is messy and sometimes a person ends up living in less than ideal circumstances, particularly when they have lost control over their bodily autonomy and their ability to make decisions that affect the rest of their lives. A living wage provides for autonomy and puts one in a better position to make wiser choices. If that means having to raise people’s wages by adjusting the minimum standard, why is that so controversial?
In reading this summary of Schmitt's core idea, it is clear that the idea as ideology is simply a tool for anyone wishing to usurp power in a classic way: divide and conquer. My grandparents from Italy were villified; my wife and her family were villified as descendents of slaves (her great-grandfather), and my mom's family as Hillbillies from West Virginia. As Joe Scarborough says, once I shake hands with an immigrant who has just taken the oath for citizenship, he's as American as I am. I don't speak Italian nor Hillbilly and my wife is bidialectal in Standard and Black English. Most of my Mexican-American students spoke little Spanish despite our proximity to the border here in Maricopa County. That's America. Some people can't get over it and so the dual ideologies, All people are created equal and some are more equal, have always been with us. It's called bigotry, and all the superficial arguments on economic, pseudo-scientific 'empiricism', religious or other grounds can't disguise it.
This revelatory of the reactionary politics in the Republican Party in its present form. The heavy use of “otherism” in right wing messaging is clear and a convenient tool for those who want to hold all of the cards against egalitarian ideology in liberal democracy. In other words, those who have don’t like the idea of a living wage for workers because it takes more from their already 99% piece of the pie. Convincing the workers that these “invaders” from the southern hemisphere are going to lower their wages is the hook to employ the masses.
Hope through joy is what the nazi party ran on in the 30 now the democratic socialist of America are running on the same thing. No policies though. She owns all the problems bieng vp .
If you're saying that more immigrants will not cause a large loss in the wages of current residents, I agree with you. There's a lot of good evidence on that from economists. I do think, though, that a "living wage" is a bad idea. From what I've read, most people's estimates of the living wage are above $15 an hour. If that were implemented by law, low-skilled workers would have much more trouble finding jobs. Shikha, by the way, is familiar with this argument.
This was a reply to Joyce Morris. I forgot to label it as such.
The minimum wage is currently $7.25/hr. That is hardly a living wage that promotes health, good nutrition and a healthy lifestyle. If you are so sure that the minimum wage doesn’t need to be higher, then I invite you to live, purposefully, on that amount of money.
If you can’t figure out how to care for your family, much less yourself, on that wage then I suggest you reassess your position on the issue.
I was referring to the living wage, not the minimum wage. It's true that the federal minimum wage is $7.25, but in the majority of labor markets in the country, it's above $7.25. If you want to change your argument from the original, discussing the minimum wage and not the living wage, we can do that. Just make clear what you're arguing for.
Also, it is infeasible to raise a family on one person's minimum wage, which is why people are well advised not to do it. Instead, they should live and ideally marry someone else who's making money, work their way up the productivity ladder and then and only then, have children.
Ok, ok, I get it. I seem to have conflated the topics of minimum wage vs a living wage. I advocate for a living wage because it infers that people who make less than that live on the margins, at best. Having a family is expensive and should be planned according to one’s ability to support it. But life is messy and sometimes a person ends up living in less than ideal circumstances, particularly when they have lost control over their bodily autonomy and their ability to make decisions that affect the rest of their lives. A living wage provides for autonomy and puts one in a better position to make wiser choices. If that means having to raise people’s wages by adjusting the minimum standard, why is that so controversial?
In reading this summary of Schmitt's core idea, it is clear that the idea as ideology is simply a tool for anyone wishing to usurp power in a classic way: divide and conquer. My grandparents from Italy were villified; my wife and her family were villified as descendents of slaves (her great-grandfather), and my mom's family as Hillbillies from West Virginia. As Joe Scarborough says, once I shake hands with an immigrant who has just taken the oath for citizenship, he's as American as I am. I don't speak Italian nor Hillbilly and my wife is bidialectal in Standard and Black English. Most of my Mexican-American students spoke little Spanish despite our proximity to the border here in Maricopa County. That's America. Some people can't get over it and so the dual ideologies, All people are created equal and some are more equal, have always been with us. It's called bigotry, and all the superficial arguments on economic, pseudo-scientific 'empiricism', religious or other grounds can't disguise it.
This revelatory of the reactionary politics in the Republican Party in its present form. The heavy use of “otherism” in right wing messaging is clear and a convenient tool for those who want to hold all of the cards against egalitarian ideology in liberal democracy. In other words, those who have don’t like the idea of a living wage for workers because it takes more from their already 99% piece of the pie. Convincing the workers that these “invaders” from the southern hemisphere are going to lower their wages is the hook to employ the masses.
Hope through joy is what the nazi party ran on in the 30 now the democratic socialist of America are running on the same thing. No policies though. She owns all the problems bieng vp .
Very helpful. Thank you.