“After attending college on cheerleading and beauty pageant scholarships and marrying into families of Southern wealth and imperialistic opinions….”

get out into the world much, Lynn?? Your assumptions in this entire piece reek of every bit as much a cartoonish view of the real world as the movie itself.
I mean, if they were that rich, I figure the women didn’t really need a scholarship, and had the way paid through school. A process, by the way, that provides excess capital for the school to afford scholarship funds for less wealthy students. Oh, and did you ever study how many folks have gone from those low-paying food service jobs on to far more lucrative careers? It’s been pretty well documented, had you bothered to look, but why use a process called
T-H-O-U-G-H-T, right? How glib to dismiss all such food producers as “incarceration/torture complexes like Smithfield, Monsanto, and Tyson” and then decry someone else’s simplistic view. At least, they were simply trying to put our a feel-good movie. You are trying to sell cultural criticism. Shouldn’t the bar be set a tad higher??

How many people with limited (HS) education and without family resources do go from shift work at fast food places to more lucrative careers? I’d like to know.

Since its pretty well documented, where would I find such information?

Yes - CallMeSlick exactly. Cartoonish. Thank you. I guess I made my point (and then some based on your rant about colleges and scholarships and capitalist-food-industrial-production-systems that are apparently kinder and gentler than I noted).
Thanks!
I mean imagine a nice grass-fed cattle raised on a free-range farm with loving farmer Joe who then ends up in Burritos from Taco Bell.
Hey, isn’t that exactly how’d they portray it cartoons?
Sufferin’ Succotash, man.

NJDave writes:”How many people with limited (HS) education and without family resources do go from shift work at fast food places to more lucrative careers? I’d like to know.”

Well, I was about to go digging for the stats, but everything I’m aware of would not limit the studies to those who choose to limit their education. And, why should it? In our current, global economy, if you’re going to limit your education, you should expect more than a limited income? Why the heck should a person expect to make more than an unskilled individual elsewhere, really, when you look at it?? Welcome to the real world. I note, with great regularity, that South Asians, with whom I work, have little problem motivating their children, despite limited family resources, to pursue an education. And, those children, by and large, thrive. When the hell did a job at a Taco Bell become a career choice?

Lynn, what was your point,exactly? I mean, I read a treatise in which you seemed to promote stereotypes in order to bash a movie that carried it’s own, but saw little in your critique that carried any real weight. It isn’t like you showed any knowledge of Southern culture, you went on some sort of rant about modern food production(which carried the same tone we all decry from the right),
but where does the movie fail, as light entertainment? Citizen Kane? No. Echoes of Casablanca, hardly? I guess MY point is that your piece above shows a level of condescension toward those you don’t understand that Progressives might do very well to lose, should they have some intention of uniting the nation behind sensible progressive goals.

CallMeSlick, well since The Blind Side is nominated for an Oscar as “best” picture (along with the likes of Citizen Kane and Casablanca probably were in their day) I think we, as a movie viewing nation, have definetely been reduced several pegs with regard to “quality” in film. That was my point. Sandra Bulloch looked like a walking advertisement for every youth cream and face lift and tummy-tuck and tight-ass outfit that is promoted - ad neauseum - to young girls (yes and even those from the SOUTH!).
How could I not poke (now, not literally here - CallMeSlick - lest you accuse me of that) fun of her?
If you missed my point, and by your admission you did, here it is: I was looking at the underbelly of this feel good movie. You, know, the part about the systemic, inequitable, inverse relationship that exists in our system of capitalism between labor and those that control the capital (thus “control” the labor) that no one seems to recognize or admit is here. It is the elephant in the room.
Is that not progressive enough for you?
I’m sorry you had to be told that point. I really am. But I guess you were focused on my supposed critique of Southern culture. (What! I mean I was born in Southern California!)
Abraham Lincoln said “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Labor can exist without capital. But capital cannot exist with labor.”
Exactly.
Hey, Husband Sean Tuohy wouldn’t be sitting in his big house without the likes of the labor that works in his restaurants. So then, how much is their labor worth? If he (obviously) makes a return on that labor that allows him “his” liberties (but not that of his laborers)?
Is it worth at least a “living” wage?
And “Living” for whom?
There was no condensation in my piece. That was sarcasm. (sorry to point that out also).
You say “Welcome to the real world.”
Whose real world are you talking about?
The one viewed by labor (the majority)
or another?

I would suggest to you that I obviously did not miss your point, although I wondered aloud if I had. You claim that there is a systemic inequity in our labor market. I would argue that while inequities exist, historically speaking, the current US market doesn’t look quite as bad as you make it out to be. By the way, I think the Lincoln quote should actually read, “…capital cannot exist without labor”. And, he was right. Traditionally, labor, applied diligently, will, and I emphasize this point, SLOWLY produce capital. And, all things being equal, that capital, if prudently saved, can better the life of those performing the labor. This has worked, to some extent, for a long time in this country. My earliest anscestor on this side of the Atlantic arrived as an indentured servant. He worked his ass off, and by the time he died, owned a small farm. His children labored and by the third generation, the family owned a good sized tobacco plantation. No instant gratification, no minimum wage, just a bunch of English Protestants toiling in a damned marsh to make something for themselves and their families.
To pick out the lower wages of a fast food restaurant, you are eyeing a profession that employs over 70% under 21 year old labor. It’s not a living wage, it’s a starter for development of functional work habits. Many, many persons in our society have started in such jobs, working through school or other training, and gone on to far more lucrative employment. So often, it seems, the ‘Progressive’ agenda seems to feel that it is the place of ’someone else’, not the individual, to develop the skills necessary to survive and thrive. By doing so, we demean the individual, and provide excuses for failure in a society. By painting the business owner as ’sitting in a big house’ might fit the movie image, but do you really think it reflects the real world? I’d venture that most franchise owners do a bit more than that, and risk far more than you credit them for.
I guess my fundamental beef with this piece, and your attitude demonstrated gets back to the message I’ve been working through on Commonsense2: Progressives have to back away a bit from railing against every perceived inequality in the world, if they want to truly influence American politics in a real, and positive manner. This nation has some real,serious problems, and the minimum wage isn’t one of them. At all. It’s time we started to sort the wheat from the chaff, and get to the real issues that have been slowly pulling us toward oligarchy, dictatorship or absolute chaos. We have to be part of the dialog toward resolving a massive debt, loss of freedom, unresponsive government and loss of an economic model that actually produces things. By demonizing, over-dramatizing and(as suggested elsewhere) shouting, we aren’t going to do it. That is the real world I speak of.

Finally, I hope that reading this hasn’t caused condensation on your part.
See, I’m down with that whole sarcasm thing…….

Oh I’m sorry. My apologies. I didn’t realize you were The Decider. “Progressives have to back away a bit for railing against every perceived inequality….the minimum wage isn’t one of them.”
(I had to stop writing because I was laughing. Wait, wait).
OK
I just got back from preparing 45 returns - pro bono - at a clinic in one of NJ’s poorest cities. The average age of my clients was 55. Those who found work are employed at fast food restaurants. And yes at Taco Bells (I’ll give you the list: McDonalds, Wendy’s, Burger King, KFC, and supermarkets like Shop Rite, Acme).
Hold onto your hat: This is the real world.
They barely get by. If the minimum wage kept pace with inflation, it would be over $10 today. It is not. They live in dire poverty - AND THEY WORK FULL TIME! But hey, maybe if they work on their “functional work habits”, they’ll get ahead.
I’ll give them your message.

Lynn, I could not refrain from supporting your sentiments about the awful state of poverty for those who work at the minimum wage. I saw the movie, and I liked it, but family life seemed very sanitized and not terribly messy. Your notes made me think more deeply about what lies beneath the success of this family. I can’t vilify them, as having some money does make it easier to be charitable. Life didn’t seem complicated, but that’s Hollywood.

On the topic of the minimum wage: Putting the minimum wage low on the totem pole of dire situations in this country is a big mistake. While there are so many problems with politics and government, a citizenry who can barely make ends meet taxes every system, taxes them personally, and creates a large segment of the population who are too stressed out to think about much more than surviving. It seems silly that we have to remind people that a 40-hour work week at minimum wage earns $15,080 per year. That’s before taxes. If one has to support another person on that wage, that puts them just about at the poverty line. If they live in AK or HI, they are below the poverty line. It’s pathetic.

It is nearly impossible to survive well on this wage. The dollars can be stretched further in low-rent regions of our country, but in metropolitan areas like NY/NJ, for instance, it is almost impossible to live on one’s own on this wage. One is lucky to find a one-bedroom apartment for under $1,000 per month unless one can share living space, or is willing to live in a bad neighborhood. At $12K for yearly rent, there is not much left over for everything else, and certainly no money for fun extras or traveling.

For the benefit of those who don’t know:
The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia:
Persons in family - Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050

In AK, poverty level for one person is $13,530. In HI, it’s $12,460.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

Greetings from Florida, where the general view on jobs, housing, foreclosures and all things having to do with the economy, are nothing like Hollywood’s bucolic view of life in the south. Unemployment is still rising and layoffs are a constant reminder of the downward spiral that will be with us for longer than most care to admit.

Any job regardless of the pay would be a welcome opportunity for most. However the reality is Washington is far more concerned with their own survival than that of the people they supposedly represent.

I thought Senators Schumer and Hatch had created a very good bill to create jobs immediately that was simple, two pages I think, and yet not much response from any other senator from either side. So one would assume if they are unable to load their pork onto it, forget it.

“To pick out the lower wages of a fast food restaurant, you are eyeing a profession that employs over 70% under 21 year old labor. It’s not a living wage, it’s a starter for development of functional work habits.”

I sure would like to see your source for this statistic. I myself have degrees in electrical engineering and applied physics and have been unable to find any employment in these fields. I have sent out 114 resumes and applications in the past six months and haven’t heard one response. I have a dozen friends who also worked for Lucent Technologies who are in a similar situation, there just isn’t any opportunities in our career field.

I currently am working at McDonald’s of Mt. Penn. Your statistic is so far off the mark it isn’t funny. Most of the employees are over the age of 25. Many are in their forties and fifties.

What I find more alarming is your flippant attitude that this is not only acceptable, but something that shouldn’t even be addressed through political means. What should we do then slick? Perhaps decide to turn to a life of crime to make ends meet? What is it going to take to get you to wake up? I hope for your sake it isn’t just before a poor sole murders you for your pocket change because their starving!

The Democratic Party was supreme in this nation when it stood up for the working man. Ever since the party has turned corporate, through the DLC, it has been a weak party that only seems to gain power when the Republicans pull a George W. Bush… and even then only after two terms!

It took three terms (1981-1992) before that…

It is sad how so many people who “got theirs” have such an attitude. You can call yourself any label you want, but clearly you are no ally of people like me who are struggling to make ends meet because we refuse to take advantage of others (exploit) or turn to crime.

Clearly, you and your ideals are the disease keeping the Democratic Party weak, and in turn, bolstering the Republican Party, for those who are working and making some money desire the tax policies of the Republicans. History shows us that when the Democratic Party puts economics at the forefront, they easily win power. It often made me wonder why the leadership constantly turns the party away from this sure fire winner… until I realized the leadership is corrupt and “in the pocket” of the Elite.

So sad that the mouth pieces for the Elite cry “class warfare” when someone merely expresses the truth of the situation, all the while ignoring the actual class warfare going on… like the minimum wage and other types of exploitive behaviors that transfer the wealth from those who labor to those who have capital. I would say shame, but why waste my time… clearly people like this have none.

It is also instructive to note that the minimum wage, if indexed for inflation would be closer to $25 an hour, not $10.

I saw a program on c-SPAN about a year ago where a professor was talking about this subject. He started his argument by comparing common household goods, like milk and bread. In 1937, when the minimum wage was established at 50 cents an hour, a loaf of bread was 3 cents, a penny if a day old. Today, that same loaf of bread is 5 to 7 dollars, because you have to compare the same quality product that comes from the bakery department, not the garbage bread that is mass produced, pre-sliced, and full of preservatives and other nasty chemicals. A gallon of milk was 5 cents, today it is 6 dollars, again… compare the same organic milk that was sold then, not the crap full of rBGH that is poisoning the people who consume too much of it.

His closing argument and his best argument was the price of gold, since this has traditionally been the hedge against inflation. In 1937, an ounce of gold was $20 or so. What is an once of gold going for today… about $1000?

That is a 50 times increase from 1937, ergo, there is your $25 per hour minimum wage equivalence!

I second that emotion for both of these comments Stefan. Great job!!

“So often, it seems, the ‘Progressive’ agenda seems to feel that it is the place of ’someone else’, not the individual, to develop the skills necessary to survive and thrive. By doing so, we demean the individual, and provide excuses for failure in a society.”

I want to take umbrage with this statement as well.

The liberal agenda has always meant to me seeking justice for all, not to make excuses for those less fortunate or lazy, what have you. From all I have learned of political science, your views Slick are closer to those of a true conservative.

We need to start thinking more about the use of language for this is very important. I believe a progressive is to a liberal, what a neo-con is to a true conservative. Liberals understand that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (thank you Lord Acton) As such, liberals desire a smaller, weaker federal government. A progressive on the other hand, desires a powerful federal government that infringes on all levels of society… the nanny state if you will.

Irony is found in how the Elite use their mouth pieces in the Media to attack liberalism, yet they are defining progressive views as liberal. This is supported by the spineless members on the left who are afraid of the word liberal itself and incorrectly describe themselves as progressives!

Now I know conservatives also believe in a smaller, weaker government, but for a totally different rationale. Conservatives want to exploit others who are either not smart enough to know better or just too desperate to object. As a liberal, I understand the difference, and I don’t believe in shrinking the government down enough to drown it in a bath tub like Grover Norquist once opined several years ago. Just get the government out of our bedrooms and our private lives, focus government on protecting our liberties.

Neo-Conservatives desire to replace public power (government) with private power (corporations). Progressives by all appearances seem to have no problem with this, but a liberal sure does and so should a true conservative. Individual liberty is a glorious gift when tempered with responsibility; but the whole rationale behind incorporating it to indemnify one’s self and avoid responsibility for the harms that person’s decisions are ultimately the cause thereof.

The misuse of political language is the modus operandi of the propagandist. It truly makes it difficult to ever educate a large enough segment of the population to achieve any object outside of the one the Elite constantly ram down our throats. The Media is pervasive and constantly dumbing down the general population; and yes, saying this surely does make me sound like an Elitist myself… but the defining difference is revealed in that statement I lead off this comment. The pursuit of justice for all, rather than the financial enrichment of one’s self clearly reveals who are the actual Elitists and who are just well educated liberals who desire a better society.

It’s late, I’m tired, so I hope I conveyed a cogent argument with my comments here tonight.

Good night…

well, I ducked out of town to NOLA to party with friends, and escape the cold, so now, I catch up on my reading……..still, only one thought occurs reading what has been posted here since I departed for the land of crawdads and cocktails–you all dwell on the $7.50/hr paid to the guy who serves your taco, while I didn’t read too much concern over the guy who gets $2 a day to make your shirts, or 12 cents/hr to assemble your TV set, etc, etc. Therein lies the root of a lot of the ‘issues’ raised here, and a lot of US economic woes in general. Until you can address an economy and a nation who finds that status quo acceptable, most of the above is nothing short of trivia.
Stefan, you are correct, I actually meet the key criteria for being considered, by the traditional definition, a Conservative. IE: I feel that mankind, left to it’s own tendency, is going to victimize the weak, and that regulation should be used to control that tendency. That’s conservatism in the Hobbes/Locke era definition. Now, note that my definition is NOWHERE near yours. That would be because your definitions have no basis in commonly studied Political Science literature. Frankly, yours would seem to be merely made up to suit your worldview. Oh, and my statistics on percentage of workers of a given age in fast food come from a total of three studies, conducted in the 2000-2006 timeframe. I’ll be glad to go back and cite them for you. Look, I sympathise with your current plight, but I think the percentage of trained engineers in fast food service, nationwide, hovers somewhere under 1%, so once again you are personalizing the situation, which leads to bad reasoning and really dubious conclusions.

I don’t recall anyone here ever saying that it is OK for someone making $2 a day where ever, but in the end, if you are discusing government and politics, we only truly have control over our own governments… at best. Since these nations that have terrible conditions for their workers are run by despotic regimes, we as a nation could refuse goods and services from them, even if transferred through an intermediary source. That I believe would lead to the true spread of freedom and democracy, for when you take the profit out of exploiting peoples, you diminish that injustice.

You seem to love to go off on tangents, but hey, I guess we can discuss anything here!

I am pressed for time, so I will be back tonight to expound upon this further… got to go flip the burgers you know!

Anyway… I have three rhetorical questions for the answers are basically obvious.

One: Since you ignored it, should we assume you have no counter argument about where the minimum wage should be if indexed for inflation?

Two: What do the wages of people in Bumfuck Egypt have to do with keeping the minimum wage as low as possible here in the United States?

Three: Since you basically admitted you’re a traditional conservative, why do you call yourself a progressive?

Hmmmmm…

Oh, one more thing. Please Sir, stop trying to dismiss my arguments without serious counter-argument. I am not personalizing my arguments, just buttressing them with real world examples. I took a closer look at the employees of the Mt. Penn McDonalds the past couple days. The average age (rounded off to a whole number) is 33. Now I admit, in the three months during Summer, that number will go down significantly, for the company will hire many young people who are out of school for those Summer months, when the store is much busier and the extra work force is justified. The studies you refer to quite probably are influenced by this, as I believe this trend is basically universal across the nation. That, plus any study by a non-profit group is often used to achieve a set objective, not reveal the whole truth, and I suspect the studies you cite are designed to manufacture acceptance of the minimum wage.

I am off to work… later!

I am pressed for time, so I will be back tonight to expound upon this further… got to go flip the burgers you know!

Anyway… I have three rhetorical questions for the answers are basically obvious.

One: Since you ignored it, should we assume you have no counter argument about where the minimum wage should be if indexed for inflation?

Two: What do the wages of people in the 3rd world have to do with keeping the minimum wage as low as possible here in the United States?

Three: Since you basically admitted you’re a traditional conservative, why do you call yourself a progressive?

Hmmmmm…

Oh, one more thing. Please Sir, stop trying to dismiss my arguments without serious counter-argument. I am not personalizing my arguments, just buttressing them with real world examples. I took a closer look at the employees of the Mt. Penn McDonalds the past couple days. The average age (rounded off to a whole number) is 33. Now I admit, in the three months during Summer, that number will go down significantly, for the company will hire many young people who are out of school for those Summer months, when the store is much busier and the extra work force is justified. The studies you refer to quite probably are influenced by this, as I believe this trend is basically universal across the nation. That, plus any study by a non-profit group is often used to achieve a set objective, not reveal the whole truth, and I suspect the studies you cite are designed to manufacture acceptance of the minimum wage.

I am off to work… later!

P.S.- I guess the censor didn’t allow this post the first time, so I changed two words… sorry for any double posting if it ultimately gets through.

it may seem like a tangent to you, Stefan, but it is at the heart of why we have the economy we have. It has been sold to the public, over decades, the idea of grotesque consumerism: that we all should be able to have nearly everything we want, and get it on the cheap. Hence, you end up with a system that takes jobs and skills from this country, sends them to other places where labor is cheaper, and you end up with a US economy that is built solely to reap investment profits. The net result, for much of the population, is more and more low-paying(relatively) jobs, and the seeming injustice of the rich getting richer and most folks sinking, slowly, into the morass.

well, I think I covered the first two questions. As to the third, ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are the two basic alternatives of political philosophy. Being Progressive is not a political philosophy, per se, but a willingness to look to the future. There is nothing inherently liberal or conservative about being a Progressive. Now, I understand that many here will read those words and snort into their Organically Grown Vegetarian meal, but it’s true. It’s just that we have grown so used to the butchered definitions used in the rhealm of modern US politics. In fact, if you believe government should be in place providing strict regulation to prevent greed and corruption from hurting the lives of the public, you are a Conservative, as traditionally defined. To make such regulations in such a way as to move the society to a more just, peaceful and enlightened place, makes one a Progressive, to my mind.

By the way, Stefan–the three studies I used as reference to my earlier points regarding both career opportunity, and where I got my percentages were:

1. The Boston Federal Reserve Bank employment report- Q2 2001

2. National Youth Employment Coalition report from Jan 2010(data from 2009)

3. Monthly Labor Review- August 1994.

the latter was dated, but contained good information. It was, to be honest, the source of the 70-plus percent figure for sub-21 employees in Fast Food.
Certain more recent studies have put that number down to around 55-60 percent.
I think you will note that the range of sources I chose was with an eye to avoiding some consistent political or sociological bias, consciously choosing one from the Fed, one from a pro-labor source, and another from a Progressive organization championing life-skills for disadvantaged youth.

Well Sir, we have two fundamental problems here.

First, you know that most people here consider progressive to be liberal in nature, yet you exploit that for what appears to be at this point nefarious reasons.

Second, the fact that the minimum wage should be $25 dollars an hour clearly means we are talking about most Americans, across most occupations, not just kids in fast food being affected. Yet you still believe the minimum wage should not be addressed… but hey, your a conservative, right!

Also, LAWS dictate what can be done. It are the LAWS that have led to this situation our economy is in, not some amorphous belief that we should have everything for cheap. You just cited a conservative talking point that doesn’t truly bear any fact of reality. By trying to deflect from the truth of our laws, it makes it all but impossible to change, but hey… once again, you’re a conservative!

no matter what ‘most people here’ wish to think, Progressive does NOT equal Liberal. Words DO mean something, dontcha know? Further, on the topic of my own personal beliefs, I am in favor of a robust social safety net, strong regulation of the capitalist economy, freedom of choice in most all personal matters, less military activity worldwide and environmental responsibility.
These would ALL, I think, be considered Progressive viewpoints.

Now to your second, COMPLETELY LUDICROUS point–the minimum wage of $25. Are you freaking joking? What employer is ever going to expand a business or what investor is ever going to risk investing, if unproven workers are going to be paid at the rate of $1000/ week? Such a policy, if any nation would be stupid enough, collectively, to enact it, would lead to a near-immediate collapse of all productive employment, essentially leading to massive levels of unemployment. That might be the most idiotic idea I’ve ever heard espoused by anyone, ever, or the Internet. Right or left, that takes the prize!

And, finally, sorry if you can’t look around you and see a sense of entitlement to goods and services at a level unthinkable in our society 25 years ago(across all economic lines). The idea of folks running up credit lines into 5 figures was rare at best until the 1980s. I blame Reagan for the whole “everyone can, and should be able to have everything” mindset. But, then again, I blame Reagan for a lot of stuff, from the demise of basic scientific research, to the change in economic mindsets. Most of all, I blame Reagan for the complete twisting of what Conservative and Liberal truly mean. Read up, Stefan, on the philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau et al, that form the underpinnings of modern political thinking. You might be surprised at what you learn……

correction to above……I intended to write that the idea of a 25 dollar per hour minimum was was the most idiotic idea I’ve read ON the Internet. Typo!

I was still laughing too hard at the idea to focus on my keystrokes. Sorry.

You don’t get out much if you truly believe that!

You make the same tired argument that conservatives made in the 1930’s about the minimum wage, yet raising it did more to spur economic activity than any other program, for all of a sudden, people had disposable income to actually go out and buy things. It led to the massive expansion of the middle-class too, but hey, keep laughing, you’re making a powerful impression here.

Other than that, your dismissal of the changes to the laws that allowed for the current economy, trying to substitute in this “feeling” that you describe as the cause is duely noted.

nonesense. Utter nonsense. My wife, after I related your idea to her, made another point that is equally valid(after she stopped chuckling at it). Do you have any idea how much, for example, fast food would now cost folks? If, at every step along the way, a minimum wage of $25 was in effect, you’d be selling
$20 double cheeseburgers. Unlike the 30’s, the profit margin in most businesses is FAR less, as a percentage of labor costs. I have no problem with the rise in MW that we’ve seen, rising from the $1.60 per hour I got at a restaurant in the 1970’s to the current rates, but $25/ hour is laughable. You would have, in an global economy, essentially NO INDUSTRY in this country. And, loss of industry is already a major problem with our national economy.

Further, you merely ‘duly note’ the change in national attitude? Cite what laws or changes to the law, made folks feel entitled to every last gadget, designer clothing and such, even folks at lower wage levels? What ever happened to families working, saving and climbing up the economic ladder, as opposed to peeing away their capital on ‘things’? Do these changes in laws hinder, for example, the Indian/Americans I work with? It seems that many of them started in this country, living in cramped quarters, working at any job they could get, and saving their money. Now, twenty years later, they are buying businesses, sending their kids to Ivy League schools, and following pretty much the same script that Americans followed for a couple centuries, successfully. No, Stefan, it’s not the laws, it’s not ‘the man’ keeping folks down, in a lot of cases. It’s a lazy, entitled, dumbed-down public, avoiding education, and blaming others for their shortfalls, all the while running their lives on borrowed money, that have contributed to many of our societal problems. To blame it all on ‘the rich’, or ‘the corporate elites’ is just a cop-out. Sometimes, a society has to look in the mirror and realize that it is ALL OF US. And, making this thing a complete circle, pulling out of our nation malaise requires consensus from all of us, less finger pointing and unrealistic expectations. Oh, and yes, one hell of a lot of hard work. I don’t see where you intend to help. And, that, my friend, is not Progressive, because your path won’t actually achieve Progress.

Come on man… the changes in the law didn’t create this belief you cite. That is YOUR poppycock!

The changes in the law allowed for this global economy. Without them, there would be no mass exodus of manufacturing to China. I am all down with free trade with free nations, but believe we must ban trade with despotic regimes. That will force these petty dictators out of power, or relegate them to the trash heap of history.

Yes, there are issues with some peoples’ attitudes, but to ignore the laws that actually enable the exploitation around the world is to protect the status quo… again, what conservatives desire most!

Your last line is a doozy!

Progress for whom?

I doubt everyone…

let’s go back to your $25/hr minimum wage. What do you propose paying PhD Scientists? How about Physicians? Your proposal would either lead to inflation at a level than renders any benefit to anyone moot, or a complete destruction of the prime motivator for anyone to educate themselves in a profession.
Now, you would solve the issue of a global economy how? Ban trade with despotic nations? OK, so we avoid trade with China, Venezuela, Columbia, a few in Africa. Then what? Is India, or Mexico on your list? How about South Korea?
Japan and Europe certainly don’t have despotic regimes and NONE of those nations would, for one freaking second, entertain an idea as goofy as a $25/hr national minimum wage. The ultimate problem, in a global economy, is that the world has entire TOO MANY people. Thus, there is not enough capital, resources or food to sustain all of them at what most of us would consider minimally comfortable levels. Am I happy about that fact? No. But, I am a realist, and thus try to focus on doing the best as is possible for the people in MY nation.
Now, on to the second post above: you write, “Your last line is a doozy!
Progress for whom? I doubt everyone…”. Now, what I wrote was,”And, that, my friend, is not Progressive, because your path won’t actually achieve Progress.”
I wrote that, in context, because you propose NOTHING that will have the slightest chance of adoption, NOR even prove viable, if anyone was so dumb as to enact it. Now, given that, care to explain what sense your post even makes?

Finally, standing on your petty, seemingly jealous soapbox and calling me a “conservative” or bemoaning what “conservatives” desire doesn’t faze me. I am concerned with doing the best by as many citizens as possible. Name calling and demonizing others based upon political labels is both childish and unproductive. In other words, you bring to the table the symptoms of our nation’s problems, and non of the solutions.

I am sorry to point out the fact that I never labeled you anything… you in fact described yourself as a conservative. Why do you bemoan the issue?

Please spare me the rant about solutions, for I have yet to ever see a comprehensive solution from anyone, including you. If you are so unaware of the process of solving problems, let me be of assistance.

Step One, correctly identify the problem then correct it. Not treat the symptoms as you seem to desire.

Inflation is not caused by wages, that too is a conservative talking point. Inflation is caused by over printing currency beyond the size of the total economy.

In addition, I am not in the business of proscribing what the market should pay individual occupations. Why do you want to even go down that road?

It is also instructive to actually understand what capital is. It is not money. Capital is superfluous production beyond the minimum subsistence level to survive. It is created through labor. There is never a shortage, unless you pervert the economy into a Ponzi scheme and steal too much of the fruits of other peoples’ labor.

Indeed there is a shortage of resources on this planet for the population at hand, but what do you propose to solve that? Once again, you are grasping for an escape from that which we can actually solve here.

Words certainly do matter, that much we surely agree on, but intention to deceive is also important. To come here describing yourself as a progressive with the full knowledge that the majority here have a different understanding of that term than you do is tantamount to a gross deception, so I have every intention of exposing such subterfuge for what it is. If that incurs your feeble wrath, so be it. I have been insulted by far better writers and orators, but never hung my head as a result for I am not a deceiver, nor do I make arguments that are not well thought out in advance. This method of communication is cumbersome and often leads to these spats as we have here. That doesn’t make it right, but hey, you reap what you sow.

Anyway, why aren’t you still laughing?

Well, Stefan, I think anyone who has ever spoken to me knows full well that I am a Progressive. Still, I will freely admit to being a pragmatic progressive, focused on the attainable, rather than providing excuses for failure. You’re hilarious, with your ‘exposing the subterfuge’ nonsense. There is no subterfuge, just differing points of view, and how to get good things done for the society. Now, if you don’t think wage pressures can be inflationary, you don’t understand economics, so I’ll stop trying to explain that whole world to you(your view around simply printing currency is beyond simplistic).
Oh, and why would you think I would ever stop chuckling when I think of your proposal. In light of my whole argument that many progressives seem incapable of forming coherent paths to progress, you’ve not only provided Exhibit A, but the most laughable socioeconomic proposal I’ve ever run across. So, yes, I am still laughing…..Hey, you’re on the County Democratic committee, am I right?
Perhaps, we’ll soon get to chuckle together. If you think I can be a riot under these limited circumstances, wait until I run, and join that group….
(yes, I have the petition, right here on the desk beside me, and the urging of two of the County leaders, near daily, to run).

By the way, I note, Stefan, that you didn’t even bother to answer my follow-up questions regarding wages. Nor, did you understand the part about a global community attaining(and I quote myself here)”what most of us would consider acceptable levels”. Because, you see, such levels for Americans would go FAR beyond subsistance. Now, you are correct in stating that capital imbalance CAN be the result of exploitation of the labor of others, but sometimes, it is a reflection of the microeconomics of the individual or group.
You write as if the Global Economy of the present day could somehow be curtailed. The global economy is and was going to be a reality with or without the US, given technological advances. Our laws merely enable or restrict our nation’s participation in that economy. Once again, blaming outside, uncontrolled forces for a world in which our population doesn’t seem willing to prepare for is not going to lead to a brighter future.
Finally, a point of mine which you never addressed was around why the South Asians of my acquaintance seem to thrive within the current system, warts and all. By thrive, I mean they still achieve the generation to generation economic progress the system has always promised(and frequently under-delivered
on). How is this possible, if the odds are SO heavily stacked against the working man? Is it because they know where to focus their energies(in the education of their children, in preserving their money for investment), and they are willing to forgo luxuries and exhibit patience and intelligence. Far too few of our fellow citizens can do likewise, and to ignore that fact for the sake of easy economic fixes(eg; just raise the minimum wage, who cares what it does to incentive?)is NOT the route to progress. To be Progressive, to my mind, involves actual development of a path to progress, not unworkable schemes or divisive tactics. Progress is, more often than not, VERY slow. It requires patience. To acknowledge and embrace that fact does not make me, or others who think like me, anti-progress. It simply makes me pragmatic.

No. you’re wrong… I am not a Democratic committeeman or delegate. If I haven’t answered some of your questions, it is probably for the same reason you have not answered some of mine! This medium is tiresome. My views are far more complex than the short comments that are posted here, but hey, since you feel some need to feel like you won an argument, go with that.

hell, there’s a few good descriptions of arguments on the Internet. None of them flattering nor politically correct. I’m not trying to ‘win’ anything. As you say, this might not be the best, or most efficient way to exchange thoughts. However, I do think exchanges of very different approaches to problems, with similar end point goals, is good intellectual exercise. It would be good(and is good) for others to join in, rather than you and I solely batting things back and forth like so many tennis balls.