Missing you, Antonin...nope!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/u...ion-union-fees-supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/u...ion-union-fees-supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=1
I'd hazard a guess that since Bobby Kennedy's assassination happened in her formative years, it left a big impression and she was more inclined to bring it up to prove her point, you know, old people and their 'back in my time'. Everyone then got that and didn't make a meal out of that in March, but as Obama lead the race and the historic prospect of his candidacy became more and more apparent, and the bad blood between the two campaigns intensified, it was imprudent of her to repeat that comment. It was more a matter of context than anything else. Now, if you brought up her birther attacks, that'd be entirely legit. There were plenty of insinuations about how 'un-American' Obama was from her campaign back then, and that was straight up dirty politics.It's still a really really strange thing to bring up. Bernie rightfully got a lot of criticism when he started talking about turning superdelegates (though I'm still unclear if he means that only for states he has won, because that is the part he has been repeating).
Imagine if he said he's in the race because FBI. Then imagine he said because she might die. He'd be buried.
Thanks. Will have a good look!If you scroll down to "The shape of past endorsement primaries" here - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ - you can see the Dem 08 race in nominations. They aren't the whole story of superdelegates as they relate only to members of Congress and Governors, not taking into account "distinguished party leaders" and the DNC, but gives you a good idea of Obama's trend. He had a decent number already by Iowa, at which point he shot up.
Also found this article mentioning him narrowing her lead by a lot in late Feb, before primaries in Ohio and Texas had taken place - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama
Her campaign in 08 was generally a bit of a clusterfeck, laughed at it quite a bit at the time. They took a long time to realise it wasn't about state wins, it was about delegates. Speaking of which...I'd hazard a guess that since Bobby Kennedy's assassination happened in her formative years, it left a big impression and she was more inclined to bring it up to prove her point, you know, old people and their 'back in my time'. Everyone then got that and didn't make a meal out of that in March, but as Obama lead the race and the historic prospect of his candidacy became more and more apparent, and the bad blood between the two campaigns intensified, it was imprudent of her to repeat that comment. It was more a matter of context than anything else. Now, if you brought up her birther attacks, that'd be entirely legit. There were plenty of insinuations about how 'un-American' Obama was from her campaign back then, and that was straight up dirty politics.
So this guy's either incompetent or they were never seriously trying to win.
I don't get to vote, but surely one has to realize Bernie's policies are simply unrealistic.I just cannot understand how one can hear both Hillary and Bernie and want to vote for Hillary, but hey, Bush won (twice) so what do I know?
A big win for Hillary in NY (as the polls show) should really be the end of it, if Sanders tries to drag things out after it. He's quickly lose the goodwill he's generated.Sanders will concede the nomination once the New York primary is over. Don't see him avoiding a crushing defeat here.
Clinton to her credit has been really gracious about Bernie staying this long in the race.
I don't get to vote, but surely one has to realize Bernie's policies are simply unrealistic.
It's all very well making promises, but there's no way he can deliver.
A big win for Hillary in NY (as the polls show) should really be the end of it, if Sanders tries to drag things out after it. He's quickly lose the goodwill he's generated.
lose goodwill for what?
He's hardly been attacked so far...
Oh and Hillary can deliver on all the promises she has made? She has made quite a few similar ones you know. No politician ever delivers on his/her promise. But Bernie is a straight shooter and will at least try unlike the rest.I don't get to vote, but surely one has to realize Bernie's policies are simply unrealistic.
It's all very well making promises, but there's no way he can deliver.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-minimum-wage-deal-20160328-story.html
$15.00 an hour...a boost for Sanders.
A big win for Hillary in NY (as the polls show) should really be the end of it, if Sanders tries to drag things out after it. He's quickly lose the goodwill he's generated.
Excellent.
![]()
Agreed. There will be immense pressure for him to bow out after NY, although in today's age, candidates seem to want to stay in for more leverage later on...never mind that they are doomed.
Saw a story the other day (it might have been old), but it showed a number of Burger Kings and McDonald's in Florida had already replaced much of their front counter staff with automated order machines (multi-lingual of course). They would have one or two people working behind the counter whose sold job was to hand people their orders. No fuss about staff handling money, the machines take cash or card. Obviously it is not just the $15 wage driving the switch to these, but it will be interesting to see if the pace pick ups in states that go to the $15/hr rate.
Reminded me of when it was found out that at some drive-thru's the person you spoke to when you placed the order was actually a call center operator, who took the order, it was then sent to the restaurant where it was filled and delivered to you at the pick up window.
yeeeha..
another GOP cartoon .
err not true of course.
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?
John Schmitt February 2013
(meta-analysis)
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-resea...cember/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf
http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster
They are talking about doubling the minimum wage, which is a massive difference than a small incremental increase that much of hte literature is based on.
They are talking about doubling the minimum wage, which is a massive difference than a small incremental increase that much of hte literature is based on.
its a plan tpo get to the 15 dollar per hour by 2022.. its not from one day to another.
A sub-living minimum wage means taxpayers have to foot the part of the bill that corporations don't.
A living wage=minimum wage will stimulate the economy since low earners have a high marginal propensity to consume rather than save.
See, I'm not an economist, and can also make statements like that which seem obvious. It's best to let the data speak for itself.
Also, the increase in California will be gradually implemented in 2022. And the current min wage is 10.0, so it's not a doubling. It's a gradual increase to 1.5, over 6 years.
Why would any business not reduce employees when they are losing money on wages. Also, why wouldn't they simply automate their business model to reduce the need for as many employees. Its simple common sense.
Raoul. I cannot understand how you choose to argue this in a vacuum. People living in poverty/near poverty is a bigger burden to the tax payer. And I still reject your argument. I have first hand working knowledge of looking at the books of many small businesses. They are simply maximizing their profits. They will pay what the market pays.
Its not rocket science really - we are quickly moving away from low wage positions toward automation. Why on earth would any small business owner keep as many employees on staff when they are forced to pay higher wages. They will simply can the extra employees who are reducing their bottom line. Manufacturing jobs will automate and reduce staff that way. Also, 30k (15/hr) is hardly a respectable livable wage these days in most places. 60k or above and you're talking a reasonable salary that is sufficient for a small family - 80k or more for home ownership.
The question I am asking is what happens to families until we move to the numbers you mention? What needs to happen is a higher progressive tax rate to fund education. The removal of health insurance companies, thereby getting rid of artificial costs and moving to single payer. This needs to happen fast.
$12 or $15 at the end of the day are neither of them living wage. It helps, but not a lot.
Its not rocket science really - we are quickly moving away from low wage positions toward automation. Why on earth would any small business owner keep as many employees on staff when they are forced to pay higher wages. They will simply can the extra employees who are reducing their bottom line. Manufacturing jobs will automate and reduce staff that way. Also, 30k (15/hr) is hardly a respectable livable wage these days in most places. 60k or above and you're talking a reasonable salary that is sufficient for a small family - 80k or more for home ownership.
I'm talking about Sanders' proposal - he supports a $15 minimum wage and Hillary supports a 12.
Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.
They seek education and pursue higher paying jobs ?
Should we expect a living wage (wherever that falls) for low-skilled labor? (before anyone call me callous or worse, its a detached question but still relevant)
Raoul. I cannot understand how you choose to argue this in a vacuum. People living in poverty/near poverty is a bigger burden to the tax payer. And I still reject your argument. I have first hand working knowledge of looking at the books of many small businesses. They are simply maximizing their profits. They will pay what the market pays.
Should we expect a living wage (wherever that falls) for low-skilled labor? (before anyone call me callous or worse, its a detached question but still relevant)
What would the logic be for that?