Prop 205 fails and 206 passes...what is wrong with Zonie voters ? (rent, job market)

[magnum0417]

Originally Posted by Burning Madolf

This thread should be closed and or deleted for using the term "Zonies."

Find it easier to say than Arizonans. Surfs up ace !

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

I have a sense of personal responsibility, but I am also a realist. A poor person doesn't have the means to take care of a child that they didn't want, so if they are forced to "take responsibility" and keep the kid, odds are that said kid will grow up to be a criminal or worse

A poor person can just as easily put on a condom or use the many other widely available birth control methods out there, which are relatively inexpensive. Besides, why should the burden of irresponsible breeders fall on society/taxpayers? Why should the ones who worked hard to earn higher incomes give a crap about the ones who don't want to better themselves? And quite frankly, I don't care one bit about children, I have no use for them, and I'm sick to death of hearing politicians squawk about protecting all the damn kids. If people are too lazy or stupid to prevent pregnancies, then that's their problem.

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Also, it throws our wage scale all out of whack. Those on the bottom are helped but those in the middle and above just move closer to the bottom. All their years of hard work, education, experience gets them nothing. The only ones benefited are the new employees who have no experience, work history, or education.

Exactly! This is precisely why I voted against 206. Also, even though the lower wage earners are helped for a while, they won't be for long when the costs of goods & services increase ... they'll be right back where they started. The middle class gets the shaft (as usual) because they won't see their wages increase, but will instead be burdened by the higher cost of living.

[AZ Manager]

Originally Posted by magnum0417

You are half as libertarian as I am....you are a 180 on fiscal issues from me and that is your choice and that is fine. Religion has less to do with low income pregnancies than plain enabling of the welfare system to encourage it. I am glad Zona has marginal benefits to such people but again...this Prop 206 was a fiscally liberal vote that I am amazed passed here. This state is jumping shark politically to say the least. This will just encourage a bunch of uneducated folks making $9 an hour to move here for $12 to further cramp the market for rentals.

That right there is an interesting idea that I would like to see some support for that claim.

I voted yes because of the tie to inflation and sick pay but I don't work and haven't for a while now so it doesn't really affect me. I doubt the increase will change much for small businesses, I think the federal estimate was a $10 min wage would bring up inflation slightly but not near the difference in wages. We could really use some inflation anyway.

And this, don't know how well this link will work: https://www.google.com/amp/s/benjami...ndroid-verizon

[Valley Native]

Magnum brought out a good point in his original post about the defeat of 205. Before the election, Colorado was the only nearby state to obtain marijuana legally for recreational purposes ... however, now it will be CA and NV taking more tax revenue away from AZ. Nevada grabs enough tourist dollars from AZ because of what Vegas has to offer. Southern CA has plenty of attractions that cause many "Zonies" to head over there (especially during the summer months). Meanwhile, Arizona loses out.

I'm not terribly disappointed that 205 failed so much as I am disappointed that other nearby states will be taking away more of our revenue, which they do enough of anyway. The sad fact is that Arizona is seriously lacking in tourist attractions. Sure, we have the Grand Canyon, and many other natural wonders to bring in the tourists, but what else is there that's really fun and exciting? Meanwhile, we have to pay all the bottom feeders an extra $4 per hour by 2020, which will be even more of a loss of revenue to businesses.

[magnum0417]

Speaking of 206....being ranked 47th in education...starting teaching salaries here are high 20s. That is barely above the $12 an hour wage in 2020. A slap in the face to say the least !

[AZDesertBrat]

Originally Posted by magnum0417

Will have to agree to disagree. Small business owners paying $4 an hour more plus medical will just create layoffs when the wages get to $12 in a few years. That will include chain stores like Walmart who are stingy to begin with in addition to mom and pop small businesses. Automated self checkouts will become more and more prominent as that is a one time expense to save paying cashiers $12 an hour. This goes for other service jobs like fast food . MCDonalds is going computer in areas that have $15 an hour minimum like Seattle.

Not trying to be snarky but what is keeping the small business owners from making more money so they can afford to pay their employees more? I thought the idea of having a business was to make money and be inventive and ambitious enough to make it pay well. If they did make more money would they willingly pay their employees more? Just wondering is all.


Walmart isn't as stingy as most of the companies/businesses I've worked for in my long years of working. I've been with them for going on seven years now and don't find them "stingy" at all. Except for wages and that's being changed pretty fast. Walmart has always paid over minimum as a starting wage and even though it really sounds like way too little, it is getting better. I do like the automatic raises every year. I've had very few jobs in my life that ever offered raises at all so that's a nice plus. I like the quarterly bonus too. Benefits of every stripe and some fully company paid. Walmart could be worse and, for all I know, it has been at some time but, to me, it's a good place to work.


I don't know about other stores self checkouts but ours has an attendant every hour they are open so 'somebody' is being paid a wage. Not $12 hour yet, unless they've been there a while, but they still get paid. The self checkouts in our store are taken care of by people who can't do other things in the store like cashiering. Physically they just can't do that so they are permanent self checkout cashiers and been with the store a long time. Anyway, the only way a store will save money on self checkout is to leave them unattended and, boy, would that be chaos. lol Enough people already hate self checkout so if they started losing their cashiers to it they'd riot!

[magnum0417]

Originally Posted by AZDesertBrat

Not trying to be snarky but what is keeping the small business owners from making more money so they can afford to pay their employees more? I thought the idea of having a business was to make money and be inventive and ambitious enough to make it pay well. If they did make more money would they willingly pay their employees more? Just wondering is all.


Walmart isn't as stingy as most of the companies/businesses I've worked for in my long years of working. I've been with them for going on seven years now and don't find them "stingy" at all. Except for wages and that's being changed pretty fast. Walmart has always paid over minimum as a starting wage and even though it really sounds like way too little, it is getting better. I do like the automatic raises every year. I've had very few jobs in my life that ever offered raises at all so that's a nice plus. I like the quarterly bonus too. Benefits of every stripe and some fully company paid. Walmart could be worse and, for all I know, it has been at some time but, to me, it's a good place to work.


I don't know about other stores self checkouts but ours has an attendant every hour they are open so 'somebody' is being paid a wage. Not $12 hour yet, unless they've been there a while, but they still get paid. The self checkouts in our store are taken care of by people who can't do other things in the store like cashiering. Physically they just can't do that so they are permanent self checkout cashiers and been with the store a long time. Anyway, the only way a store will save money on self checkout is to leave them unattended and, boy, would that be chaos. lol Enough people already hate self checkout so if they started losing their cashiers to it they'd riot!

Not to sound snarky but why do the bottomfeeders get a 50% increase in pay by 2020 ? This is exactly the crap people have complained about with enabling. To me...it is the equivalent of a participation trophy. The irony...teachers making barely more than $12 an hour salary...if anything they make less because teachers typically put in over 40 hours a week but are salaried and get screwed even further. What incentive do college grads with any bargaining power have to teach here ? I know of a teacher near Flag who keep getting his salary REDUCED due to a lack of funding. This is where the whole right to work state rules bite certain professions in the butt here.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

A poor person can just as easily put on a condom or use the many other widely available birth control methods out there, which are relatively inexpensive. Besides, why should the burden of irresponsible breeders fall on society/taxpayers? Why should the ones who worked hard to earn higher incomes give a crap about the ones who don't want to better themselves? And quite frankly, I don't care one bit about children, I have no use for them, and I'm sick to death of hearing politicians squawk about protecting all the damn kids. If people are too lazy or stupid to prevent pregnancies, then that's their problem.



Exactly! This is precisely why I voted against 206. Also, even though the lower wage earners are helped for a while, they won't be for long when the costs of goods & services increase ... they'll be right back where they started. The middle class gets the shaft (as usual) because they won't see their wages increase, but will instead be burdened by the higher cost of living.

So if someone working for say $10/hr finds they are pregnant, and can't in nine months go from being a cashier to say an engineer, than tough $@-/ then? You can be mad at parents all you want, but it takes a very cold sociopathic person to not care about children!

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by magnum0417

Not to sound snarky but why do the bottomfeeders get a 50% increase in pay by 2020 ? This is exactly the crap people have complained about with enabling. To me...it is the equivalent of a participation trophy. The irony...teachers making barely more than $12 an hour salary...if anything they make less because teachers typically put in over 40 hours a week but are salaried and get screwed even further. What incentive do college grads with any bargaining power have to teach here ? I know of a teacher near Flag who keep getting his salary REDUCED due to a lack of funding. This is where the whole right to work state rules bite certain professions in the butt here.

Cost of living has been rising faster than wages, so if you kept the minimum wage at the same nominal amount, while COL keeps going up anyways, then the real wage falls, which would make each new worker at say a McDonalds or Jack In The Box poorer than a worker from the year before

[magnum0417]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

So if someone working for say $10/hr finds they are pregnant, and can't in nine months go from being a cashier to say an engineer, than tough $@-/ then? You can be mad at parents all you want, but it takes a very cold sociopathic person to not care about children!

Sociopathy very often allows people in their chosen field to reach the top.