--and make very little money.
I sat down several weeks ago with one of my friends--John S., the writer--and we came to the conclusion, after hours of talk, that neither of the two major political parties are accomplishing anything and the only way anything will get done is if newcomers get elected to the House of Representatives. Why the House? Well... the 98% incumbency re-election rate due to no contest. When that many people are basically given seats instead of earning them year-after-year, they grow soft. They don't stand for the people anymore; they stand for themselves.
So, the other John (S.) and I wrote down a list of our future party's stances, and here's a select few:
1) Increase in the minimum wage.
2) We will publicly make available our hours worked and pay ourselves minimum wage ($5.15/hour).
3) No free lunches for Congressmen.
4) Bettering the educational system by setting higher standards, and revoking No Child Left Behind (if you work for a school district, you know how terrible this act is). This will include setting standard tests for critical thinking and mandate that Civics be required in school once again. (And, yes, I'm aware the States have full control of their educational system, but the Federal government can set regulations such as standardized testing).
5) Reduce the federal budget before reducing taxes. Even Bush, Sr. realized this when campaigning against Reagan.
6) Increase States' rights, but hold them accountable for Federal standards.
Key stances: Education ; Minimum Wage
There's more, but the list is not near me and we'll release a more formal mission statement and political stances.
Criticism? Applause? Anyone want in? We plan on running in the 2010 election (mid-term, baby!) because we'll all be over 25 by then.
I sat down several weeks ago with one of my friends--John S., the writer--and we came to the conclusion, after hours of talk, that neither of the two major political parties are accomplishing anything and the only way anything will get done is if newcomers get elected to the House of Representatives. Why the House? Well... the 98% incumbency re-election rate due to no contest. When that many people are basically given seats instead of earning them year-after-year, they grow soft. They don't stand for the people anymore; they stand for themselves.
So, the other John (S.) and I wrote down a list of our future party's stances, and here's a select few:
1) Increase in the minimum wage.
2) We will publicly make available our hours worked and pay ourselves minimum wage ($5.15/hour).
3) No free lunches for Congressmen.
4) Bettering the educational system by setting higher standards, and revoking No Child Left Behind (if you work for a school district, you know how terrible this act is). This will include setting standard tests for critical thinking and mandate that Civics be required in school once again. (And, yes, I'm aware the States have full control of their educational system, but the Federal government can set regulations such as standardized testing).
5) Reduce the federal budget before reducing taxes. Even Bush, Sr. realized this when campaigning against Reagan.
6) Increase States' rights, but hold them accountable for Federal standards.
Key stances: Education ; Minimum Wage
There's more, but the list is not near me and we'll release a more formal mission statement and political stances.
Criticism? Applause? Anyone want in? We plan on running in the 2010 election (mid-term, baby!) because we'll all be over 25 by then.
You are using minimum wage to reduce poverty, right?
We're doing it because you can't live on minimum wage. So, in some sense, we are.
I'll help run the campaign for whatever state I happen to be in ;D
I'm don't think that's nearly enough reasoning to bump min wage. Where are the econ people?
I'm don't think that's nearly enough reasoning to bump min wage. Where are the econ people?
That's should be enough to bump minimum wage? I've had to work minimum wage jobs before. You can't live off of it, and if they can't live off of a MINIMUM wage, then why call it that?
And yay for campaign managing!
And yay for campaign managing!
define live.
$5.15*40=$206
$206*4=$824 (conservative weeks per month)
Maybe work consistently and get a 10c raise? Or work a bit more. It's a fine minimum. It shouldn't be expected that people work at min wage for a lifetime, even high school drop outs can move up to higher pay.
I'm not saying living like that is easy but how many people die because they can't live off minimum wage?
$5.15*40=$206
$206*4=$824 (conservative weeks per month)
Maybe work consistently and get a 10c raise? Or work a bit more. It's a fine minimum. It shouldn't be expected that people work at min wage for a lifetime, even high school drop outs can move up to higher pay.
I'm not saying living like that is easy but how many people die because they can't live off minimum wage?
I agree with paying congressmen less. It should be a financial burden, so you are obviously not doing it for money/power. I like the New Hampshire approach of paying $100/year plus mileage.
I am not so sure about the minimum wage argument. At this point America effectively has no minimum wage. I have read articles arguing that really the only people making federal minimum wage are high schoolers flipping burgers. The rest of the the people are either paid more than minimum by simple supply and demand, or are paid their state's minimum wage. Places that are expensive to live like California usually have much higher minimum wages. In other words, I don't think it will have that great an effect unless you raise it to like $10. But i think wages lower than $9-10 are usually just for people starting out with no qualifications whatsoever.
>5) Reduce the federal budget before reducing taxes. Even Bush, Sr. realized this when campaigning against Reagan
Bush Sr. campaigned against Reagan? If you are talking about balancing the budget I am all for it, but Clinton was the only one in the last 40 years to try/accomplish it.
And yes, both political parties suck.
I am not so sure about the minimum wage argument. At this point America effectively has no minimum wage. I have read articles arguing that really the only people making federal minimum wage are high schoolers flipping burgers. The rest of the the people are either paid more than minimum by simple supply and demand, or are paid their state's minimum wage. Places that are expensive to live like California usually have much higher minimum wages. In other words, I don't think it will have that great an effect unless you raise it to like $10. But i think wages lower than $9-10 are usually just for people starting out with no qualifications whatsoever.
>5) Reduce the federal budget before reducing taxes. Even Bush, Sr. realized this when campaigning against Reagan
Bush Sr. campaigned against Reagan? If you are talking about balancing the budget I am all for it, but Clinton was the only one in the last 40 years to try/accomplish it.
And yes, both political parties suck.
raising the federal minimum wage is a horrible idea. states that can effectively support a minimum wage (like california with its living wage) should do so on a state level. the differences between economies like montana's and california's is staggering.
a. you ratify a federal $6 wage which the montana economy can handle. such a low minimus wage will be ineffective in california.
b. you ratify a federal $8.50 wage which will be effective in states like california. however, such a high wage will kill montana's economy. you'll see lots of black market labor, thus state income tax revenue will drop dramatically, which will lower the budget for public education.
so first of all, minimum wages need to be regional. second, they kind of suck anyway. your party should learn some more economics then maybe i'd support you.
but, yeah, both parties such. even lp isn't great.
a. you ratify a federal $6 wage which the montana economy can handle. such a low minimus wage will be ineffective in california.
b. you ratify a federal $8.50 wage which will be effective in states like california. however, such a high wage will kill montana's economy. you'll see lots of black market labor, thus state income tax revenue will drop dramatically, which will lower the budget for public education.
so first of all, minimum wages need to be regional. second, they kind of suck anyway. your party should learn some more economics then maybe i'd support you.
but, yeah, both parties such. even lp isn't great.
jason: Yes, Bush Sr. did talk about it, then when he went into office sort of forgot about it.
lucas: Fair enough. Though, to be fair, there's no state income tax in Texas and our public education system is doing fine.
lucas: Fair enough. Though, to be fair, there's no state income tax in Texas and our public education system is doing fine.
what does that mean? 100% of the texas state budget comes from sales and property taxes?
p.s. montana has no sales tax. 100% of state revenue comes from income and property taxes (and property taxes are already very high.)
p.s. montana has no sales tax. 100% of state revenue comes from income and property taxes (and property taxes are already very high.)
There is no state income tax in New Hampshire, Alaska, Wyoming, and a few others.
Well I have been lurking for a while and feel the need to post now.
I do think both parties are pretty broken though I don't think the solution is in creating a new party that will just flounder without enough support. I think we would be far better suited to get intelligent and motivated individuals in the existing parties that would actually be capable of getting elected and getting the kind of funding necessary to run a campaign outside of a politically inactive state like Montana.
Phi: "Fair enough. Though, to be fair, there's no state income tax in Texas and our public education system is doing fine."
Everything that I have read about the Texas education system points to the problem that because of no child left behind type polices for years teachers have been inflating test scores and current data for the success of the Texas' education system is grossly over estimated. Similar problem is currently happening with no child left behind.
Just my .02$ though.
I do think both parties are pretty broken though I don't think the solution is in creating a new party that will just flounder without enough support. I think we would be far better suited to get intelligent and motivated individuals in the existing parties that would actually be capable of getting elected and getting the kind of funding necessary to run a campaign outside of a politically inactive state like Montana.
Phi: "Fair enough. Though, to be fair, there's no state income tax in Texas and our public education system is doing fine."
Everything that I have read about the Texas education system points to the problem that because of no child left behind type polices for years teachers have been inflating test scores and current data for the success of the Texas' education system is grossly over estimated. Similar problem is currently happening with no child left behind.
Just my .02$ though.
Ok, well, re: minimum wage, lucas.
We don't want it raised to $10/hour or anything. And you're right, it SHOULD be a state issue, and it already is but few states adjust it accordingly. This is intended to help those people whose employers refuse to pay more than minimum wage. We were thinking $2/hour increase, though we've not come to accept that decision fully. There's still talk amongst us about it. The talks come down to a states' rights issue. While we want to increase states' rights, we want every person to be able to live. And this isn't just us being completely liberal, all of us down here have had to try and survive on minimum wage jobs. And it's not fun.
aaronson: The success of most Texas educational districts varies greatly. While my district, Cy-Fair ISD, may be one of the best in the country, the neighboring Houston ISD, is nowhere near that good.
We don't want it raised to $10/hour or anything. And you're right, it SHOULD be a state issue, and it already is but few states adjust it accordingly. This is intended to help those people whose employers refuse to pay more than minimum wage. We were thinking $2/hour increase, though we've not come to accept that decision fully. There's still talk amongst us about it. The talks come down to a states' rights issue. While we want to increase states' rights, we want every person to be able to live. And this isn't just us being completely liberal, all of us down here have had to try and survive on minimum wage jobs. And it's not fun.
aaronson: The success of most Texas educational districts varies greatly. While my district, Cy-Fair ISD, may be one of the best in the country, the neighboring Houston ISD, is nowhere near that good.
i have a *small* infatuation with the old friedmanite idea of negative income tax + guaranteed minimum income as an alternative to the minimum wage.
yeah, i like that idea too. it is very non-bureaucratic and increases low-income people's incentive to work.
> This is intended to help those people whose employers refuse to pay more than minimum wage.
i think what you mean is: "this is intended to raise the cost of hiring employees, so there will be more unemployed people." i'm just saying that you have to recognize the costs of a minimum wage. sure, some people will get paid more. but some additional people will get laid off.
i think what you mean is: "this is intended to raise the cost of hiring employees, so there will be more unemployed people." i'm just saying that you have to recognize the costs of a minimum wage. sure, some people will get paid more. but some additional people will get laid off.
I know I've come late to the game, but I feel I have to say something.
I know from many years personal experience that minimum wage isn't enough to live off of.
Let's look at it like this.
Minimum wage is 5.15 per hour. If you work 40 hours a week (which many companies flat out refuse to do as they don't want to pay benefits), that comes to 206 dollars in one week. Monthly income would be 824 dollars before taxes.
Now lets assume that you're living in a one room apartment, the average cost (in my experience) is about 500 a month for the apartment alone. To lessen the strain, let's add a room mate who can split things like that.
So, we subtract 250 dollars.
574 is now left and we haven't adjusted for taxes.
Let's factor in another 100 for car insurance.
474.
Plus, give or take, 40 for gas (depending on the car you drive).
434.
Subtract for food which is about 60 a month. This assumes that you only eat one meal a day.
374.
Now utilities. Assuming it's only power, that would be minimum of about 80 to 100 a month (again, coming from my own experience. I've lived in about 5 different places).
324.
Now, if we assume that only 10% is taken in taxes (from our original), that leaves us with 264 a month assuming that one is granted a 40 hour work week given steady employment (temp agencies really don't cut it).
Now suppose you're living on your own. That would mean another 250 dollars in rent.
14 a month after everything. Food and gas will likely account for more.
This doesn't factor for a spouse (who may or may not work), children, planning for medical emergencies, pets, or a room mate who can't make rent one month.
It's not possible. Imagine what an extra dollar or two could do. A raise in minimum wage would allow for a buffer of extra money that could be spent however a worker pleases.
I know from many years personal experience that minimum wage isn't enough to live off of.
Let's look at it like this.
Minimum wage is 5.15 per hour. If you work 40 hours a week (which many companies flat out refuse to do as they don't want to pay benefits), that comes to 206 dollars in one week. Monthly income would be 824 dollars before taxes.
Now lets assume that you're living in a one room apartment, the average cost (in my experience) is about 500 a month for the apartment alone. To lessen the strain, let's add a room mate who can split things like that.
So, we subtract 250 dollars.
574 is now left and we haven't adjusted for taxes.
Let's factor in another 100 for car insurance.
474.
Plus, give or take, 40 for gas (depending on the car you drive).
434.
Subtract for food which is about 60 a month. This assumes that you only eat one meal a day.
374.
Now utilities. Assuming it's only power, that would be minimum of about 80 to 100 a month (again, coming from my own experience. I've lived in about 5 different places).
324.
Now, if we assume that only 10% is taken in taxes (from our original), that leaves us with 264 a month assuming that one is granted a 40 hour work week given steady employment (temp agencies really don't cut it).
Now suppose you're living on your own. That would mean another 250 dollars in rent.
14 a month after everything. Food and gas will likely account for more.
This doesn't factor for a spouse (who may or may not work), children, planning for medical emergencies, pets, or a room mate who can't make rent one month.
It's not possible. Imagine what an extra dollar or two could do. A raise in minimum wage would allow for a buffer of extra money that could be spent however a worker pleases.
Oops, I did my math wrong. It would be 244 after power, which would mean you would have a net income of -6 a month if you had to make rent all on your own.
and that's fine. but every time you create an effective minimum wage, just realize that you're putting someone out on the street.
Unless it's already put people on the street. I've had to live out of my car because it was the only shelter I could afford. If people are being paid more, a company can afford to hire more part-time employees which saves on having to pay benefits.
I'm not speaking of something exorbitant, only a raise to a living wage. It will put more money in people's pocket and increase spending. An increase would encourage more people to seek employment. More people with more spare cash is a lot of spending. It doesn't have to be raised at once, but it would certainly help more than it would hurt.
But this also seems to beg the question of "what is labor worth?" Is taking out the garbage worth 7.15 an hour? How much would you do it for? What about working in a sewage plant? How about heavy lifting? What about working for the city (keeping lawns in suburbs in order)? Working in the sun for 10 hours a day can kill you (my last job was handing out flyers, I got heat sickness nearly every day).
Also, Have you read "Myth and Measurement?" In that book, the authors demonstrate that an inrease in minimum wage does not correlate to lost jobs.
I'm not speaking of something exorbitant, only a raise to a living wage. It will put more money in people's pocket and increase spending. An increase would encourage more people to seek employment. More people with more spare cash is a lot of spending. It doesn't have to be raised at once, but it would certainly help more than it would hurt.
But this also seems to beg the question of "what is labor worth?" Is taking out the garbage worth 7.15 an hour? How much would you do it for? What about working in a sewage plant? How about heavy lifting? What about working for the city (keeping lawns in suburbs in order)? Working in the sun for 10 hours a day can kill you (my last job was handing out flyers, I got heat sickness nearly every day).
Also, Have you read "Myth and Measurement?" In that book, the authors demonstrate that an inrease in minimum wage does not correlate to lost jobs.
Just make demand for cheap labour really inelastic.
Actually, one of the findings of the book I mentioned earlier is that the demand for cheap labor is inelastic, that a raise in minimum wage does not translate into lost jobs due to there always being a demand for low wage workers.