Blogcritics: Comments on Republicans vote down wage increase

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:08:51 EST

>>Dave--$125,000 is the dividing line between trailers and mansions? join us in the real world.<< I live in Austin and while it doesn't always seem like the real world, it's not far from it. In the Austin area $120,000 is about right as the dividing line between a reasonably sized family home and a double wide or something roughly equivalent. Today in Austin for under $120,000 you can get a very nice double wide in an exurban area, a small, badly built suburban tract home with no yard, or some sort of old shack or dilapidated rural house. IMO that $125,000 cut off on the homestead exemption is way too low. Dave

Comment by Temple Stark

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:38:40 EST

You can still get a decent home here for $120,000. Lots of new construction througout AZ. That's about what we can afford; maybe $150K, $170K on two incomes. Maybe more, I haven't gone to ask for a loan, yet. PS When your credit rating tanks, it takes a while to do anythng financial again. My credit tanked when I was making about $20,000, living in a modest apartment. I needed to spend more to put food on the table. Part of the time it was top Ramen. I did and couldn't pay it back for years. We're past that now.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:24:36 EST

Condos on my block start at $400,000...

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:17:19 EST

hehe, correction: I mean far easier to win!

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 20:40:13 EST

Matt, you have a good point. Most of the lower to middle class will be negatively affected by what the Republicans have done. While it's good that the trailer park people won't lose their home, the average middle class home is what? Out here it starts at about 400,000, with any type of features (appliances, hardwood floors, etc) making them start around 500k. Ultimately though, discussing the losing of a home, while an easy debate to win, would not be near as easy to win, if the debate were about what Republicans/Bush are doing to make home ownership a reality for many people, anyway.

Comment by Matt

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:27:09 EST

Dave--$125,000 is the dividing line between trailers and mansions? join us in the real world

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:10:11 EST

Sorry, let me clarify. The relatively moderate bankruptcy reform bill passed. The insane, unconstitutional punitive measure against abortion protestors was rejected. The bill which passed isn't particularly awful. It does things like require you to pay child support before other debts, and requires credit counseling for those who declare bankruptcy. Here's a provision the liberals out there should like - it caps the homestead exemption at $125,000 - so fat cats will lose their houses in a bankruptcy, but the guy in the trailer down the road won't. Dave

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:09:45 EST

Steve - I couldn't agree more. I'd be first at the polls for Bill Clinton, Part III. Maybe that inclination could, in part, help to give Hillary the nomination in '08? Don't be surprised...

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:07:20 EST

I'm actually fairly moderate in total When I take those political quizzes, I always turn up alongside Clinton (Bill). It's only here and only by some of the Right that I constantly get labeled as a socialist, a pinko, a communist, an oppressor of CEO's, etc.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:58:11 EST

Thanks Steve. I'm actually fairly moderate in total, my recent ventures into venting aside. And to quote the Koz: I'm not an ideological Democrat, I'm a partisan one. I'm looking for leadership who can address the problems I stated in #80, and I don't care where they come from.

Comment by Temple Stark

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:58:04 EST

Actually Atrios is linking to someone else who's reporting that the bankruptcy bill passed. >>The Big Picture problem, though, is that the individual has less and less control/recourse over circumstances. Funny how that happens from a Party that is all about individual freedoms.

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:51:11 EST

Eric, sometimes I sound more radical than I might be, but you summed up my thoughts pretty good in comment 80. Dave, Atrios is reporting that the bankruptcy law did pass.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:45:40 EST

But the message from this administration (and the Republican party) remains: We don't care about individuals, we don't care about the poor, we don't care about the environment. We care about money and business (you can flip the order there if you like).

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:34:56 EST

Eric, I believe the insane bankruptcy restriction law was not passed, for what it's worth. Dave

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:26:19 EST

Steve - I share a great deal of your anti-corporate zeal, particularly with regard to insurance companies. The Big Picture problem, though, is that the individual has less and less control/recourse over circumstances, whether it is dealing with working life, the phone company, HMOs, and on and on. Recent moves to make filing for bankruptcy more difficult and cap malpractice awards will, if enacted, further curtail the options of individuals. It's a Big Business world in the US of A, and we're working for it.

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:56:04 EST

combining posts: Steve - I just read about your friends story over on another post. Sounds like she has something of a case for a lawsuit, being fired just short of being 100% vested and then asked to reapply for her position later -- that's outrageous. I get my posts mixed up, I was too lazy to look up the page to see if I told her story here or not. Sorry. If that's what happened it's not just lawsuit fodder, the state attorney general might be interested. My partner used to be a manager at the same store. There's a lot that goes on in company policy that is extremely unethical, although I won't say illegal. I don't know the rules/laws. Most of my anti-corporate zeal comes from Wal-Mart, Microsoft and the insurance/healthcare industry. I've said before, I love capitalism, entreprenuership and the American spirit to prosper and succeed. I believe corporatizing kills that spirit. Should someone want to open a store to earn their keep, what's their chances when a wal-mart is 2 miles away? Practically zilch, unless they want to be an employee rather than a business owner. And the way corporations treat people is as an asset (easily replaceable) rather than a human being. why can't she go and get an equivalent job at Target or Costco or a grocery store and make more than minimum wage? She's applied/applying. It's not like an individual store is constantly hiring. Costco said try back at the end of the month. I'm always pushing for costco, their corporate model is one of the few models that is profitable AND treats their employees decently AND pays them far more than anybody else. Is she in a situation where she has children to support? No, she was raising her grandson while her daughter was in prison. They had a falling out and her daughter said a bunch of stuff so CPS came and took the grandson away, now he's lost in the system, so no, it's just her and her husband (who spends about 12 hours a day picking your lettuce for about 2 dollars a crate). For that matter, does a fast food job in your area actually pay minimum wage? I don't know what it pays actually. She says it's unliveable for an adult. If you can't live on 5 bucks an hour or you can't live on 6 bucks an hour, what's the difference? Here's something that happened last night, I swear on my life I'm not making any of this up: Last night the DVD-ROM on my partners HP laptop crapped out. He called support and it turns out that the warranty expired 4 days earlier. He's screwed now and has to come up with 1/3 of the cost of a new laptop if he wants to replace the DVD drive (I told him to check ebay today). This is in spite of the fact that he's now systems administrator for a law firm and has purchased probably 150k worth of HP stuff in the last two years. You know, a mom and pop shop, the kind that says hi when you walk in the door, would have acknowledged the privilege of having a repeat customer and would have assisted in some way more than the response he got last night, where corporations HAVE to stick to the rules, common sense and humanity be damned. Ugh, ugh, it just works me up. Everytime we have to deal with a corporation, it just makes me sicker and sicker of big business. (he will probably get a better deal on ebay, and he's no longer going to purchase HP products for the company, but the point is the treatment he got).

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:51:36 EST

>>So it turns out she has two choices: 1) take minimum wage and be homeless and have 40 hours out of her week eaten up 2) get on public assistance, get roughly the same amount of money, still live on the edge of homelessness and have 40 extra hours per week.<< I'm not clear on why these are her only two options. With job experience from Wal-Mart why can't she go and get an equivalent job at Target or Costco or a grocery store and make more than minimum wage? For that matter, does a fast food job in your area actually pay minimum wage? It would be one of the very few areas in the country where that is the case. Is she in a situation where she has children to support? She could work, supplement her income with WIC and make it by better than on straight out welfare. There are always more than just two options. If she thinks that minimum wage and welfare are the only choices that says more about her mindset than the actual situation. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:47:51 EST

>>Steve - I just read about your friends story over on another post. Sounds like she has something of a case for a lawsuit, being fired just short of being 100% vested and then asked to reapply for her position later -- that's outrageous.<< If that's what happened it's not just lawsuit fodder, the state attorney general might be interested. Some years ago the Texas AG went after Safeway here for exactly that practice. Dave

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:43:17 EST

Steve - I just read about your friends story over on another post. Sounds like she has something of a case for a lawsuit, being fired just short of being 100% vested and then asked to reapply for her position later -- that's outrageous.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:08:11 EST

Steve: If you don't mind my asking, why'd she get fired from Wal-Mart?

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:58:30 EST

I spoke with my friend last night (the one who was recently fired from Wal-Mart). I brought up the option of slinging fries. This is the response I got: I can't live on that, I'd be homeless. So it turns out she has two choices: 1) take minimum wage and be homeless and have 40 hours out of her week eaten up. 2) get on public assistance, get roughly the same amount of money, still live on the edge of homelessness and have 40 extra hours per week. Guess which one she chose?

Comment by Matt Schafer

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:20:04 EST

After some reflections here are my thoughts. If the logic is that the higher the minimun wage goes the less people will be able to find work then why don't we just lower the minimun wage to about $2.13 or something so then everyone could find work. Also, if in order for a soceity to fuction it must treat the people on the bottom like crap then what makes us any different then comunist china or pre-Bush Afganastan? For the record I worked 4 and half hours last night and made the whopping sum of $20 in tips. Yeah, I sure don't need a minimum wage increase. Most of the people making minimun wage are in the restaurant business. The idea that those people are going to loose jobs isn't vaild, because if we have less servers I get more tables and therefore less cash, also a restuarant needs to have so many people in order to make a prophet, the worse case scenario is that it costs a couple bucks more to eat out, also good for me because it raises the check average and therefore the tip average.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:53:18 EST

Yes Trevor, I agree that it's disturbing that anyone, in 2005, is just fine with a hardworking 40-hour/week American citizen making 10,000/year. And if anyone thinks that minimum-wage jobs, guess again. I wonder if any of these people have worked the fry machine at McDonalds for eight hours, or washed dishes for eight hours. Not fun, lots of work.

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:22:40 EST

Dave, the amendment does not punish people because of their beliefs, it holds people accountable if they damage property. The idea that some legal protections should be available selectively to some people and not others is just outrageous. I agree. People who are pro-life are unaffected by this amendment, it's about damage not beliefs. I can't believe you are trying to tie this to ideology.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 9 Mar 2005 05:12:03 EST

>>Question for you, Dave. Protesters protest outside an abortion clinic. Cars are damaged and windows broken. Who's responsible financially?<< Whoever did the damage is always responsible. But you can't have laws that are selective based on political opinion or religious affiliation. You can't single out people to not have equal protection because of their personal lifestyle. You can't remove bankruptcy protection from gays or blacks or anyone because of who they are. That's not equal protection under the law. If you get sued or if you have a legal judgement against you for money damages, then you have to pay those damages to the best of your ability and if you can't then you declare bankruptcy. That bankruptcy protects certain assets so you aren't totally destroyed by the process, but still gets some money for the creditors and puts you in a rather oppressive financial situation for years afterwards. Bankruptcy is nominal protection, but it's not exactly skipping out on all your debts. I'm willing to debate the legitimacy of some of our bankruptcy laws. It's arguable that they go too far in protecting some assets. And yes, I'd like to see anyone who behaves destructively punished. But you can't have laws that punish destructive behavior by one group and not by others. If OJ can declare bankruptcy to avoid a judgement against him, then abortion protestors ought to have that same right. The idea that some legal protections should be available selectively to some people and not others is just outrageous. That's the route to selective law enforcement, legal persecution and the rule of an elite over undesirable minorities. It's not a road we should ever go down. Dave