Prop 205 fails and 206 passes...what is wrong with Zonie voters ? (fit in, student loans)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Laughlin and Blythe are salivating at the economic activity they're going to get until we legalize. DPS also says they won't increase patrol. In fact they endorsed going and smoking pot out of state so long as you don't drive impaired on your way back. There will be a ton of people buying out of state lines and coming back with it.
VN, although I don't agree with you, no one can dispute that you have been beating the "down with children" drum consistently and loudly over time. It is your signature issue on the forums, and if nothing else, you will certainly leave that legacy behind you.
That's funny because I thought I was more well known for beating the "down with the NIMBYs" drum far more than "down with the children".
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857
You would have a point, if there were more high paying jobs in the economy. Right now most jobs are very skewed towards the lower end. So if you were one of the unlucky ones that can't pull yourself out and magically be a doctor, what do you do? Stay single and never have kids?
Most entry level jobs are on the lower end of the pay scale, and those jobs are usually geared more for the younger people who are new to the workforce. Over a course of time, the newbies seek better opportunities and higher salaries when they obtain the skills and the work experience ... at least that's how it's supposed to work. You can't expect to start at an executive's salary in any field, even with a college degree.
And yes, somebody who can't afford to have children shouldn't be having them. It's like anything else in life: if you can't afford it, you have no right to expect it. It comes down to setting one's priorities straight & being responsible. Procreation is not a right, and the procreators who aren't financially able to raise children are being very irresponsible. They're reliant on the government (a.k.a. your tax money and mine). They often milk the system because they know they can get extra assistance when they have kids.
Most entry level jobs are on the lower end of the pay scale, and those jobs are usually geared more for the younger people who are new to the workforce. Over a course of time, the newbies seek better opportunities and higher salaries when they obtain the skills and the work experience ... at least that's how it's supposed to work. You can't expect to start at an executive's salary in any field, even with a college degree.
In theory, sure that's how it's supposed to be. In reality, it's not how it is.
In reality, about 50% of the population makes <25K/year, another 20% makes 25K-49K, another 15% or so makes 50K-74K, and the rest 75K+.
Summary? 70% of the population makes less than $50,000 year.
Plot this information on a normal distribution and you will see, reality, is nothing like the hypothetical situation you're speaking of, where the bell curve is 50K, which is a decent salary for an adult supporting children. It's very skewed towards the left.
If you really want the raw data, look at the statistics and plot the normal distribution yourself and find what's the median it'll give you the median income and see if that's enough money to survive on yourself let alone support a family. Personal Income: PINC-01
This is why I reiterated my point earlier, wages in this country, given how skewed it is, is a reflection of the failure of American businesses to invest in it's workforce instead choosing to invest in the shareholders. You see plenty of evidence this is happening and if you think about it, what population group generally holds the most stocks/investments right now? Super wealthy people and the baby boomers. Also to add fire to the flames, think about the tax situation with earned income versus investment income and you will see the big massive loophole.
In theory, sure that's how it's supposed to be. In reality, it's not how it is.
In reality, about 50% of the population makes <25K/year, another 20% makes 25K-49K, another 15% or so makes 50K-74K, and the rest 75K+.
Summary? 70% of the population makes less than $50,000 year.
Plot this information on a normal distribution and you will see, reality, is nothing like the hypothetical situation you're speaking of, where the bell curve is 50K, which is a decent salary for an adult supporting children. It's very skewed towards the left.
If you really want the raw data, look at the statistics and plot the normal distribution yourself and find what's the median it'll give you the median income and see if that's enough money to survive on yourself let alone support a family. Personal Income: PINC-01
This is why I reiterated my point earlier, wages in this country, given how skewed it is, is a reflection of the failure of American businesses to invest in it's workforce instead choosing to invest in the shareholders. You see plenty of evidence this is happening and if you think about it, what population group generally holds the most stocks/investments right now? Super wealthy people and the baby boomers. Also to add fire to the flames, think about the tax situation with earned income versus investment income and you will see the big massive loophole.
Brilliant post. Let me add to this. Gross National Income is the sum of Cap Gains and Wages (a bit simplified). GNI = Wages + Cap Gains. The bottom 80% depend on wages as their income source. From the top 20% on you see more and more cap gains as income source but cap gains are really concentrated in the super rich, say top 0.1%. Over many decades GNI skews towards cap gains. They make up an ever greater part of GNI. In other words human work is constantly being devaluated vs. capital income. Going on 50 years.
Problem is most people depend on work for income, only very few can live on capital gains. We have to figure something out --- it can't go on like this. It's simple arithmetic. I am actually encouraged that Trump chose Anthony Scarramucci (sp?) as his economic adviser. Even though Anthony is hedge fund manager and Wall Street insider he has stated that income inequality is the greatest and most vexing problem of our time and we have to revert this. Looking forward and being ready to collaborate with anyone and try out new ideas. We know that minimum wage increases help but if something else works better I'm all for it.
Brilliant post. Let me add to this. Gross National Income is the sum of Cap Gains and Wages (a bit simplified). GNI = Wages + Cap Gains. The bottom 80% depend on wages as their income source. From the top 20% on you see more and more cap gains as income source but cap gains are really concentrated in the super rich, say top 0.1%. Over many decades GNI skews towards cap gains. They make up an ever greater part of GNI. In other words human work is constantly being devaluated vs. capital income. Going on 50 years.
Problem is most people depend on work for income, only very few can live on capital gains. We have to figure something out --- it can't go on like this. It's simple arithmetic. I am actually encouraged that Trump chose Anthony Scarramucci (sp?) as his economic adviser. Even though Anthony is hedge fund manager and Wall Street insider he has stated that income inequality is the greatest and most vexing problem of our time and we have to revert this. Looking forward and being ready to collaborate with anyone and try out new ideas. We know that minimum wage increases help but if something else works better I'm all for it.
+1
I'm not sure exactly how to fix the current problem without taxing capital gains at a much higher rate as it is right now. Right now the problem is, the rich already has all the money and are just sitting on it and basically getting free rent every month. The only way I see how to fix it is literally tax the capital gains for high income individuals at a very high rate, we're talking 50-80% just like the 1960s-70s and use that money to invest in education, infrastructure, give middle/lower class people tax credits. That way, earned income becomes more valuable than capital income.
It's unfair in principle, but it's already a problem and it's only going to get worse the more we leave it like this. Just this alone already proves that lowering taxes for the top, doesn't create jobs since companies depend on the masses to spend money and generate a profit/expand their company. This loophole only allows them to claw together more money with less effort.
Edit: Thinking harder about this problem, it's harder to solve than I thought.
Even if capital gains tax were raised to ridiculous rates, it still doesn't solve the problem that the rich already has the money sitting in their bank accounts. Since capital gains tax is progressive just like income, a loophole that would arise out of this is, the rich would just not work for the tax year they decide to sell their assets and pay the lowest rate on capital gains (0% at the moment). This still doesn't fix the problem that they're holding onto a ton of money. The only way I see possible is to tax the total amount of assets being sold and bought (transaction tax), as Bernie Sanders suggested at some %.
Unions would fix the problem.
Look at history for proof of that.
Anyone notice the difference between when America had strong unions versus weak?
Everything good about America is disappearing quickly and I blame the propaganda that has led everyone to believe that unions are bad.
Our politicians are corrupt and on the side of corporations not the individuals or workers.
Unions were the only entity that cared for the workers and certainly the only entity that fought for them. Do you believe that overtime or any other benefit was given without a battle? How about pensions or medical benefits or any benefits? Unions created the middle class and gave us everything we have.
Is the country going towards better working conditions or is the American dream pretty much gone with the unions?
Unions were created when things were awful and they will reappear as soon as you things are bad enough.
Most do not know anything about unions but they dislike them because of the lack of education. Join a union although it won't be an instant fix until enough other people do.
I voted against 205 because it was poorly written and I prefer decriminalization over monopolies.
I voted for 206 because I care about all people. Call me a moron I don't care I am the first to admit it. 206 had nothing to do with kids or birth control and everything to do with poor and struggling to survive. Apprenticeship in a unions will help but the wages at the bottom are due for a raise and corporations are never going to care about workers.
Corporations are the problem and as humans we are in a battle with corporations.
Our form of government needs everyone to be equal. When corporations got personhood they got every right we had and as a corporation they are stronger than us and above us in regards to the politicians listening to them because they might be many voters over your single vote. blah blah blah
Unions would fix the problem.
Look at history for proof of that.
Anyone notice the difference between when America had strong unions versus weak?
Everything good about America is disappearing quickly and I blame the propaganda that has led everyone to believe that unions are bad.
Our politicians are corrupt and on the side of corporations not the individuals or workers.
Unions were the only entity that cared for the workers and certainly the only entity that fought for them. Do you believe that overtime or any other benefit was given without a battle? How about pensions or medical benefits or any benefits? Unions created the middle class and gave us everything we have.
Is the country going towards better working conditions or is the American dream pretty much gone with the unions?
Unions were created when things were awful and they will reappear as soon as you things are bad enough.
Most do not know anything about unions but they dislike them because of the lack of education. Join a union although it won't be an instant fix until enough other people do.
I voted against 205 because it was poorly written and I prefer decriminalization over monopolies.
I voted for 206 because I care about all people. Call me a moron I don't care I am the first to admit it. 206 had nothing to do with kids or birth control and everything to do with poor and struggling to survive. Apprenticeship in a unions will help but the wages at the bottom are due for a raise and corporations are never going to care about workers.
Corporations are the problem and as humans we are in a battle with corporations.
Our form of government needs everyone to be equal. When corporations got personhood they got every right we had and as a corporation they are stronger than us and above us in regards to the politicians listening to them because they might be many voters over your single vote. blah blah blah
Coming from Germany where collective bargaining is still the norm (and I was a proud union member too) I would agree that unions help. But even in Germany income inequality has risen. There are certainly more factors conspiring together. No wonder that angry working class people voted against the system that betrayed them.
* no unions and diminishing of worker rights
* globalization enabled global wage arbitration for big capital
* unchecked immigration enlarged the labor pool
* loss of Greatest Generation "manly-man" type workers who demanded that every average-skilled and average-engaged male worker earned enough money to raise a family on one salary
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.
Most mom and pop businesses already pay $12 per hour or more. It's the large corporations that pay minimum wage (fast food, Wal-Mart, grocery stores). Those large corporations can easily afford to pay $4 more per hour. Executive pay is on the rise so wealth redistribution is necessary especially when you account for wages not keeping up with inflation and the diminishing middle class.
Automated self checkouts were on the rise even with lower minimum wages. Salaries have no impact on automated work. Companies will seek to do that regardless of how much an employee is paid. Cities with higher wage scales have not shown a propensity to hire less workers. You heard horror stories about Seattle and none of them manifested. There not massive layoffs contrary to fear mongers who claimed that higher minimum wages would result in that.
This is nothing more than corporate greed. Unfortunately, it is part of the business climate. The notion that all is fair as long as it is legal is disturbing. Companies feel that it is appropriate to lay off American workers so they can pay cheaper wages for foreign workers to increase profits. And the excuse for corporate greed is always the same: "We have a responsibility to our share holders" Really, what about a responsibility to your employees and your country.
I support a livable wage. I don't do this out of some commie socialist agenda. I support it out of self interest. There is evidence to show that livable wages reduce crime, poverty and lead to increased wealth. The more people that are employed, the more they will spend on goods and service which creates wealth for everyone.
Unions would fix the problem.
Look at history for proof of that.
Anyone notice the difference between when America had strong unions versus weak?
Everything good about America is disappearing quickly and I blame the propaganda that has led everyone to believe that unions are bad.
Our politicians are corrupt and on the side of corporations not the individuals or workers.
Unions were the only entity that cared for the workers and certainly the only entity that fought for them. Do you believe that overtime or any other benefit was given without a battle? How about pensions or medical benefits or any benefits? Unions created the middle class and gave us everything we have.
Is the country going towards better working conditions or is the American dream pretty much gone with the unions?
Unions were created when things were awful and they will reappear as soon as you things are bad enough.
Most do not know anything about unions but they dislike them because of the lack of education. Join a union although it won't be an instant fix until enough other people do.
I voted against 205 because it was poorly written and I prefer decriminalization over monopolies.
I voted for 206 because I care about all people. Call me a moron I don't care I am the first to admit it. 206 had nothing to do with kids or birth control and everything to do with poor and struggling to survive. Apprenticeship in a unions will help but the wages at the bottom are due for a raise and corporations are never going to care about workers.
Corporations are the problem and as humans we are in a battle with corporations.
Our form of government needs everyone to be equal. When corporations got personhood they got every right we had and as a corporation they are stronger than us and above us in regards to the politicians listening to them because they might be many voters over your single vote. blah blah blah
I'm an advocate for organized labor too and for many of the same reasons you wrote.
The possibility of strikes are the biggest disadvantage of unions but walkouts and picket lines are a rare sight in Arizona because this state isn't very friendly to unionized workforces.
If I had my choice I'd rather have the rare strike than the frequent turnover rates and low wages that are common in right to work states such as this.
People who speak against unions should come to the realization that their paid vacations, sick leave, maternity leave, overtime pay, health insurance, retirement plans, and many other perks they take for granted were thanks to unions fighting for the average worker.
Most mom and pop businesses already pay $12 per hour or more. It's the large corporations that pay minimum wage (fast food, Wal-Mart, grocery stores). Those large corporations can easily afford to pay $4 more per hour. Executive pay is on the rise so wealth redistribution is necessary especially when you account for wages not keeping up with inflation and the diminishing middle class.
Automated self checkouts were on the rise even with lower minimum wages. Salaries have no impact on automated work. Companies will seek to do that regardless of how much an employee is paid. Cities with higher wage scales have not shown a propensity to hire less workers. You heard horror stories about Seattle and none of them manifested. There not massive layoffs contrary to fear mongers who claimed that higher minimum wages would result in that.
This is nothing more than corporate greed. Unfortunately, it is part of the business climate. The notion that all is fair as long as it is legal is disturbing. Companies feel that it is appropriate to lay off American workers so they can pay cheaper wages for foreign workers to increase profits. And the excuse for corporate greed is always the same: "We have a responsibility to our share holders" Really, what about a responsibility to your employees and your country.
I support a livable wage. I don't do this out of some commie socialist agenda. I support it out of self interest. There is evidence to show that livable wages reduce crime, poverty and lead to increased wealth. The more people that are employed, the more they will spend on goods and service which creates wealth for everyone.
Very well-written as always.
I voted for the minimum wage increase too and I'm happy it passed.
I hope the new minimum wage which is higher than the federal rate, and the defeat of Nickelbag Joe in Maricopa County will prove to the doubters that Arizona is not some far-right backwater despite some of the controversies in recent years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only way I see possible is to tax the total amount of assets being sold and bought (transaction tax), as Bernie Sanders suggested at some %.
