robertreich:

WHY THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD REALLY BE RAISED TO $15 AN HOUR

Momentum is building to raise the minimum wage. Several states have already taken action  — Connecticut has boosted it to $10.10 by 2017, the Maryland legislature just approved a similar measure, Minnesota lawmakers just reached a deal to hike it to $9.50. A few cities have been more ambitious — Washington, D.C. and its surrounding counties raised it to $11.50, Seattle is considering $15.00

Senate Democrats will soon introduce legislation raising it nationally to $10.10, from the current $7.25 an hour.

All this is fine as far as it goes. But we need to be more ambitious. We should be raising the federal minimum to $15 an hour.

Here are seven reasons why:

1. Had the minimum wage of 1968 simply stayed even with inflation, it would be more than $10 an hour today. But the typical worker is also about twice as productive as then. Some of those productivity gains should go to workers at the bottom.

2. $10.10 isn’t enough to lift all workers and their families out of poverty. Most low-wage workers aren’t young teenagers; they’re major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. And they and their families need a higher minimum.

3. For this reason, a $10.10 minimum would also still require the rest of us to pay Medicaid, food-stamps, and other programs necessary to get poor families out of poverty — thereby indirectly subsidizing employers who refuse to pay more. Bloomberg View describes McDonalds and Walmart as “America’s biggest welfare queens” because their employees receive so much public assistance. (Some, like McDonalds, even advise their employees to use public programs because their pay is so low.)

4. A $15/hour minimum won’t result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it — thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. (When I was Labor Secretary in 1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history.)

5. A $15/hour minimum is unlikely to result in higher prices because most businesses directly affected by it are in intense competition for consumers, and will take the raise out of profits rather than raise their prices. But because the higher minimum will also attract more workers into the job market, employers will have more choice of whom to hire, and thereby have more reliable employees — resulting in lower turnover costs and higher productivity.

6. Since Republicans will push Democrats to go even lower than $10.10, it’s doubly important to be clear about what’s right in the first place. Democrats should be going for a higher minimum rather than listening to Republican demands for a smaller one.

7. At a time in our history when 95 percent of all economic gains are going to the top 1 percent, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour isn’t just smart economics and good politics. It’s also the morally right thing to do.

Call your senators and members of congress today to tell them $15 an hour is the least American workers deserve. You can reach them at 202-224-3121.


The anti minimum wage lobby argument is based on a flawed premise that employers are hiring as many people for as much money as they can afford rather than the reality that they are hiring as few for as little as they can get away with.

Job loses will only occur in situations where these two ones cross

(Reblogged from robertreich)
cartoonpolitics:

"The term libertarian as used in the US means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world. Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism. In the US, which is a society much more dominated by business, the term has a different meaning. It means eliminating or reducing state controls, mainly controls over private tyrannies. Libertarians in the US don’t say let’s get rid of corporations. It is a sort of ultra-rightism." ~ (Noam Chomsky)

cartoonpolitics:

"The term libertarian as used in the US means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world. Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism. In the US, which is a society much more dominated by business, the term has a different meaning. It means eliminating or reducing state controls, mainly controls over private tyrannies. Libertarians in the US don’t say let’s get rid of corporations. It is a sort of ultra-rightism." ~ (Noam Chomsky)

(Reblogged from cartoonpolitics)
(Reblogged from robertreich)

cartoonpolitics:

Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, has died aged 84. His ‘church’ is notorious for it’s virulent anti-gay stance and picketing the funerals of US soldiers, claiming 'God blew up our soldiers' as punishment for America ‘tolerating’ homosexuality .. (story here)

(Reblogged from cartoonpolitics)

azspot:

The Most Important Economic Chart

What’s really important to realise in this chart we are looking at worked hours vs family income… Now think about the increase in % of households with dual rather than single incomes in the same time it is even more alarming. So although households on average are putting in more combined hours working median real wages aren’t growing very quickly and at times not at all. On top of the fact that the output for each of those hours is greater… Someone is making out like a bandit.

In other news income equality has decreased over the last 50 years

(Reblogged from azspot)

supergaijin asked: Assuming most men aren't trying to consciously oppress women; doesn't the road to eliminating it necessarily need to be inclusive of men? You don't leave the puppy at home when you go to obedience school. Honest question not trying 2 be argumentative

evilfeminist:

Feminism does not need men to be successful, men need to stay out of the way and learn to listen to women and their concerns. Male allies who actually care about women don’t need pat-pats and blow jobs for being decent human beings.

So do you advocate violent revolution? The way I see it is there are three potential paths forward to free women from a lesser class than men:

1) engage men to firstly reach agreement that the patriarchal class structures are still present and then work together to break them down cooperatively.

2) violent revolution to forcibly remove the male dominated power structure.

3) self imposed segregation for women

I apologize if I am not seeing potential other roadways to progress

(Reblogged from evilfeminist)

biness asked: Could you explain what a libertarian is? I saw it in a post and didn't understand even from the definitions I found.

bspolitics:

It seems like a lot of folks who identify as libertarian don’t quite understand what it means. (and before the nitpickers jump in, I said “a lot” not “all”).

Basically, it’s supposed to be a political philosophy which is based on personal liberty, with a strong emphasis on property rights and free association.

Libertarians, depending on who/which ones you talk to, believe in very limited government or little government at all.

In practice, it seems a lot of them (again, “a lot” for you nitpickers) think that business should be free not to associate or do business with people that they don’t want to do business/associate with. You can see where this would lead to problems with discrimination. Supposedly the free market would weed out the people who are discriminatory or businesses that are harmful, but we all know better.

This limited government belief extends to social safety nets (and just about any other government funded program).

Libertarianism might work in a perfect world where there was no greed, racism or exploitation, but we don’t live in that world.

Perhaps a less obviously biased definition.

In theory it is a belief in reducing government as much as possible. There are differing views within the ideology about how far this should go with ancap (anarchist capitalists) at the one extreme who subscribe to the non aggression principle and disagree with all government as it (in their belief) violates the non aggression principle as the enforcement of government laws, particularly taxes, are imposed through the threat of force. Others hold that it is necessary to maintain a military to protect liberties from external forces who could take it by force and grudgingly accept that some form if tax must be levied to find it and others also believe in a limited police force purely for the purpose of enforcing civil disagreements and or acts of violence

That was the impartial view… Below is my biased opinion

In practice many who have adopted the term use it to mean don’t use “my money” to pay for social programs for “other people” but still keep police and military and enact laws in line with my moral compass. The theory is actually fairly utopian in that they believe between charity and the free market social welfare will be taken care of (And socialism is naive??) but in practice it turns into me and people like me need protecting from everyone else who wants to corrupt my countries morals and steal my hard earned money to fund their laziness

(Reblogged from bspolitics)

bspolitics:

iammyfather:

dreadedfork:

quickhits:

Wells Fargo had instruction manual on faking mortgage documents in foreclosure proceedings.

"Wells Fargo created a manual for its foreclosure attorneys that included instructions on ‘a procedure for processing [mortgage] notes without endorsements and obtaining endorsements and allonges,’ the filing alleges. Those bits of jargon refer to legal documents. When the bank was attempting to foreclose on a homeowner but lacked the documents it needed to prove to a judge that the action was proper, this manual allegedly showed its employees how to fudge paperwork to fill the hole in the bank’s case."

[photo via Wikimedia Commons]

People need to go to jail for this.

People have needed to go to jail for a lot more, but good luck.

Every time I see a story about this, I always think about how the general population should be a lot more angry about this type of thing …

The reason people aren’t mad is because these were delinquent mortgages. The poor unfortunate homeowners weren’t paying their mortgages… What happens when you don’t pay your mortgage? The bank sells your house.

Improper documentation of collateral security is not the same as not having legal claim to an agreed security on a loan

(Reblogged from bspolitics)