Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[League Circles]

Sometimes I take it for granted how "easy" it is to not be racist because I like to think I grew up in a diverse environment where issues of race were discussed regularly and formally for my entire life. My K-5 principal was black, I had a few black friends at a young age, blacks were proportionate in my schools (due to bussing policies frankly) to their city and national population levels, black history including black literature was a notable educational topic, etc. I often wonder how it is for so many others, black and white and of course other ethnic/cultural/racial groups.

Though I also never was asked to recite the pledge of allegiance in school, not even once. I guess I grew up in something of an unrepresentative community.

[Dresden]

Sure, I think it's good, but there is a lot of work that simply isn't meant to be living wage work. Work that requires no skills whatsoever, no training, has no switching costs seems like work that is suited for part time workers and not full time people trying to support a family.

But the problem is, the way things have evolved, with huge corporations like Walmart, Home Depot, Walgreens, McDonalds, etc., putting small, locally owned stores that did the same thing out of business, more and more jobs have become "work that isn't meant to be living wage work". And I think people are right to speak out against that, and to demand more out of these large, very profitable corporations.

Unless I'm mistaken, Henry Ford set a standard in his factories by instituting a $10/day wage, which was high at the time. And his reasoning was that if his employees made more, they could then afford to buy his cars. And that was similarly unskilled labor that didn't require much training.

Compare that to Sam Walton's philosophy: "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."

[dougthonus]

Exactly my point, you don't have to qualify your statements because it is just how you live. It doesn't come into you mind to have a defense, because you don't have that hate in you so you don't need to justify your statements. I don't mean this statement to be a broad stroke painting everyone, it is just my own flawed observations. By no means is everyone that uses a qualifier a bigot, but some maybe more than I like to admit are, and scarily they don't know it themselves.

Many people believe racism is about malice and ill thought and not about stereotyping people based on race.

When they believe a racial stereotype is true and isn't born from malice in your heart but is simply a fact then you don't think you are being racist for stating what you believe to be true, because you don't mean it in a bad way. To you, you are just presenting a fact.

[Michael Jackson]

Exactly my point, you don't have to qualify your statements because it is just how you live. It doesn't come into you mind to have a defense, because you don't have that hate in you so you don't need to justify your statements. I don't mean this statement to be a broad stroke painting everyone, it is just my own flawed observations. By no means is everyone that uses a qualifier a bigot, but some maybe more than I like to admit are, and scarily they don't know it themselves.

Many people believe racism is about malice and ill thought and not about stereotyping people based on race.

When they believe a racial stereotype is true and isn't born from malice in your heart but is simply a fact then you don't think you are being racist for stating what you believe to be true, because you don't mean it in a bad way. To you, you are just presenting a fact.

Indeed and all that really needs to be done is for all of us to examine what our thoughts are. Not just ignore it. I'm white and while I grew up in a very non racist household over the years I noticed odd judgments I had just because of social environment. I was lucky enough to be involved with many different races and have these things pointed out to me so I could see them in a different light. From there I was able to adjust my thoughts which were not intentionally hateful but were not correct.

[League Circles]

Sure, I think it's good, but there is a lot of work that simply isn't meant to be living wage work. Work that requires no skills whatsoever, no training, has no switching costs seems like work that is suited for part time workers and not full time people trying to support a family.

But the problem is, the way things have evolved, with huge corporations like Walmart, Home Depot, Walgreens, McDonalds, etc., putting small, locally owned stores that did the same thing out of business, more and more jobs have become "work that isn't meant to be living wage work". And I think people are right to speak out against that, and to demand more out of these large, very profitable corporations.

Unless I'm mistaken, Henry Ford set a standard in his factories by instituting a $10/day wage, which was high at the time. And his reasoning was that if his employees made more, they could then afford to buy his cars. And that was similarly unskilled labor that didn't require much training.

Compare that to Sam Walton's philosophy: "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."

The massive difference is that the analogy to Henry Ford is modern times is Google and Facebook, basically. They can, and do, afford to pay people more than needed because they are in immature, emerging industries where profit margins are very high. Eventually, as was the case with cars and general retail, competition makes the industry mature and profit margins get very low.

Walmart doesn't really exist if it has to pay much more to workers IMO. That's a good and a bad thing.

[musiqsoulchild]

Sure, I think it's good, but there is a lot of work that simply isn't meant to be living wage work. Work that requires no skills whatsoever, no training, has no switching costs seems like work that is suited for part time workers and not full time people trying to support a family.

But the problem is, the way things have evolved, with huge corporations like Walmart, Home Depot, Walgreens, McDonalds, etc., putting small, locally owned stores that did the same thing out of business, more and more jobs have become "work that isn't meant to be living wage work". And I think people are right to speak out against that, and to demand more out of these large, very profitable corporations.

Unless I'm mistaken, Henry Ford set a standard in his factories by instituting a $10/day wage, which was high at the time. And his reasoning was that if his employees made more, they could then afford to buy his cars. And that was similarly unskilled labor that didn't require much training.

Compare that to Sam Walton's philosophy: "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."

The massive difference is that the analogy to Henry Ford is modern times is Google and Facebook, basically. They can, and do, afford to pay people more than needed because they are in immature, emerging industries where profit margins are very high. Eventually, as was the case with cars and general retail, competition makes the industry mature and profit margins get very low.

Walmart doesn't really exist if it has to pay much more to workers IMO. That's a good and a bad thing.

Which in a roundabout but connected way does being us back to UBI.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I don't know, I think this is kind of a silly point. What the average person will say is whatever benefits them and depends deeply on how you phrase the question.

It also depends deeply on what a living wage is. Should you have enough money to own a house? Is that now a minimum? Should you have to be able to live on your own or just with a roommate or family?

The average person isn't working a minimum wage job, so the 'living wage' question doesn't impact them directly, except that it'd allow them to offload the tax burden that comes with subsidizing a corporation. I don't think it's a question most people answer selfishly.

And if you can acknowledge that a living wage is in the public good, and that it's a policy most people want, who, then, are we allowing to decide that some jobs don't deserve a living age? The employers? They are absolutely acting in self-interest, so I don't see why we'd leave it to them.

For me, a living wage doesn't necessarily involve home ownership. Stable housing, food, clothing, child expenses in two-income households... the basics.

[League Circles]

For me, a living wage doesn't necessarily involve home ownership. Stable housing, food, clothing, child expenses in two-income households... the basics.

I'd somewhat reluctantly argue that providing for children isn't a living wage issue. I think there has to be a level of respectable and productive labor that would support oneself but not support others.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

For me, a living wage doesn't necessarily involve home ownership. Stable housing, food, clothing, child expenses in two-income households... the basics.

I'd somewhat reluctantly argue that providing for children isn't a living wage issue. I think there has to be a level of respectable and productive labor that would support oneself but not support others.

You're certainly not alone in that, but I disagree. For me, two full-time wage earners should be able to raise a reasonably-sized family.

[League Circles]

For me, a living wage doesn't necessarily involve home ownership. Stable housing, food, clothing, child expenses in two-income households... the basics.

I'd somewhat reluctantly argue that providing for children isn't a living wage issue. I think there has to be a level of respectable and productive labor that would support oneself but not support others.

You're certainly not alone in that, but I disagree. For me, two full-time wage earners should be able to raise a reasonably-sized family.

If we follow that logic through, should there be zero disincentive to have children?

One thing that would be interesting would be if we could determine the standard of living that we think everyone should be entitled to, and how that would actually cumulatively compare to our total economic output. We could see if all together our society is productive enough to support what we think we should all be entitled to.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I'd somewhat reluctantly argue that providing for children isn't a living wage issue. I think there has to be a level of respectable and productive labor that would support oneself but not support others.

You're certainly not alone in that, but I disagree. For me, two full-time wage earners should be able to raise a reasonably-sized family.

If we follow that logic through, should there be zero disincentive to have children?

One thing that would be interesting would be if we could determine the standard of living that we think everyone should be entitled to, and how that would actually cumulatively compare to our total economic output. We could see if all together our society is productive enough to support what we think we should all be entitled to.

Most living wage calculations I've seen are based on a family of four. It's kinda weird to tell people how many kids they can reasonably expect to support, but I'd agree that two sounds like a good number.

And yeah, matching total economic output vs standard of living for each family makes sense to me. Pretty sure it's been done, and the conclusion reached is that we'd all be fine if there were massive wealth redistribution.

[2018C3]

The town of Downers Grove had a protest yesterday. and it looks like things went well. The protest was originally scheduled for last Wednesday, but got cancelled and re-scheduled for Sunday.

The businesses in town boarded up last week, and when the protest got re-scheduled they handled things well. The Business owners allowed local artists to come in and paint murals on the ply wood that was covering the windows. (I thought it was pretty cool that someone had this idea).

I honestly think that these pieces of art should have been auctioned off, and the proceeds donated. I believe lots of people would have lined up to purchase these murals. They could have made another event out of this to drive further awareness and positive change,

[dice]

I'm not black, so I obviously have no clue what the experience of being black is like. I think there are a few different things. There is overt racism and there is systemic bias we all have towards people that are more like us and race is one of those characteristics that will land in there. If blacks had equal financial / political power per capita to whites, that second type would be a lot less impactful because there would be much more diversity in top positions which would limit the impact. The really overt racism has been dwindling slowly for generations as far as I can tell, but again, since I don't live the experience and live in a diverse area that seems to generally have a lot less racism than other areas, my views on the topic may be overly optimistic compared to the nation as a whole.

like you, i am not black, but i would imagine that the most damaging form of personal racism these days is the subtle kind. when someone mistreats you and you suspect that they're racist but aren't sure. in most locations, so few people are overtly racist these days that they're broadly seen as ridiculous. but i defer to the black posters here if they care to speak to that

Subtle racism is so bad right now. I think it is so subtle that most people are unaware that they are being racist, they truly are oblivious of their racism. I believe that they believe that they aren't being racist, but that is not the case. An example in my life is my mother in-law claiming she is not racist, before making racist comments about African Americans, which she does in our house in front of her half black granddaughter. She was asked to leave and still clueless that she was being racist. That is far from an only example but that one is pretty on the nose. It is odd how many times I hear that my daughter is "ok". WTF do you mean she is OK? "I mean I am not racist, see I talk to your daughter so I don't have a problem with her being black?" Insanely ignorant. This is by no means a broad scope of white people, but it sometimes is shocking to see how many do have those views. It seems to be to simply qualify as not being racist, is you don't drop N Bombs in front of Black people and viola I am not racist? It's a real low bar to qualify with that tag. The I'm not racist or I have a black friend statement is often said and immediately followed by a racist statement that that person is willfully oblivious is a racist statement. The reason I say willfully is because if they weren't thinking their statement is racist they would not need to "qualify" their statement.

i used to have a middle-aged gay roommate who would say stuff like "i'm not racist, but you realize that our culture is better than theirs, right?" pretty amazing

[dice]

neither biden nor trump wants to defund police departments. i suspect that biden is saying this strategically because it takes away trump's ability to use it as a contrast. he is currently up 7+% on trump in nationwide polling vs 4%+ for hillary at the same time 4 years ago

[dougthonus]

The average person isn't working a minimum wage job, so the 'living wage' question doesn't impact them directly, except that it'd allow them to offload the tax burden that comes with subsidizing a corporation. I don't think it's a question most people answer selfishly.

And if you can acknowledge that a living wage is in the public good, and that it's a policy most people want, who, then, are we allowing to decide that some jobs don't deserve a living age? The employers? They are absolutely acting in self-interest, so I don't see why we'd leave it to them.

For me, a living wage doesn't necessarily involve home ownership. Stable housing, food, clothing, child expenses in two-income households... the basics.

Another way to phrase it is why should corporations be subsidizing the public good? Why is it their responsibility rather than the governments responsibility to care for the populace? Though in the end, I think the debate is really about how can you most efficiently arrive to the point you want.

As we both discussed earlier, the wealth gap is a problem. If you solve that wealth gap through UBI or higher minimum wages or other social programs, it really doesn't matter as long as you solve it somehow, and to solve it you need to take from the uberwealthy be they individuals or corporations.

[League Circles]

You're certainly not alone in that, but I disagree. For me, two full-time wage earners should be able to raise a reasonably-sized family.

If we follow that logic through, should there be zero disincentive to have children?

One thing that would be interesting would be if we could determine the standard of living that we think everyone should be entitled to, and how that would actually cumulatively compare to our total economic output. We could see if all together our society is productive enough to support what we think we should all be entitled to.

Most living wage calculations I've seen are based on a family of four. It's kinda weird to tell people how many kids they can reasonably expect to support, but I'd agree that two sounds like a good number.

And yeah, matching total economic output vs standard of living for each family makes sense to me. Pretty sure it's been done, and the conclusion reached is that we'd all be fine if there were massive wealth redistribution.

Is that a yes or no on whether there should be any disincentive to have children? What I'm getting at is that if you take two people doing minimum value work, should the person without children make that much less money? Or should the minimum living wage assume that one has children? Seems like someone is getting screwed either way. FWIW MIT has a living wage calculator and they have tiers for single, one kid, two kids etc.

[MrSparkle]

In the end, I just base all my social policy opinions on Star Trek TNG. They got all principles right AFAIC. Minus the sexy alien planets.

UBI.

As tech improves to the point where almost all menial tasks can be automated, and eventually resources and food might not even need to be mined or harvested or butchered (that's a bit of sci-fi, but not entirely - I do think at some point in the next 75 years farmed cockroach mush will become a protein out of necessity), you must move away from traditional employment concepts.

Universal health care.

57% of all employers in the US offer health care. That is pathetic. That's not even including gig and small self-employed workers. That basically means at least 43% of Americans are paying WAY too much for their healthcare (or simply going insured), because a corporate pool pays way less for a much better plan. If you streamed the stats down to "good" plans, I bet it'd be an even lower number. It's a clearly outdated union system that needs to be thrown in the trash bin with the other travesties of the 20th century. Less than half the population has good health care, even though most the population works. That is stupid. Period.

Highly principled and ethical military/space structure.

I don't endorse the warfare nor a military government, but I do think military structure works. I also think veterans should be rewarded more than aldermen and politicians, but that's a whole other subject. But imagine if our USPS or public school system had the same discipline as West Point? I don't see the advantage of making our schools so soft. I could've used more discipline as a 10-16 year old. Especially at the age, it's a great time to instill organization, leadership, ambition, endurance.

Again, don't confuse military structure with weapons training and ideological nationalistic propaganda. Not at all promoting a population of soldiers. Or a draft. Nothing of the sort. I simply see room for more discipline in the general population. Coupled with ethics, philosophical training. Linguistics. Programming/intelligence. Hell the military has a band/musical track. It'd be a natural balance to UBI. You do pay some dues , and those dues supply the country with people who can provide medical, technical and security services.

But most importantly, there needs to be a very strong emphasis on ethics and justice if you go this direction. It can be an optional means of paying through college.

Just thinking out loud. But the 20th century systems are broken in the 21st century. We're 20 years in but still acting like it's 1985. Rand McNally is not printing maps anymore, more venmo payments are in circulation than pennies and nickels (hell, bitcoin), and we still want to act like getting a job at a restaurant or manufacturing plant is a viable career option.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

The average person isn't working a minimum wage job, so the 'living wage' question doesn't impact them directly, except that it'd allow them to offload the tax burden that comes with subsidizing a corporation. I don't think it's a question most people answer selfishly.

And if you can acknowledge that a living wage is in the public good, and that it's a policy most people want, who, then, are we allowing to decide that some jobs don't deserve a living age? The employers? They are absolutely acting in self-interest, so I don't see why we'd leave it to them.

For me, a living wage doesn't necessarily involve home ownership. Stable housing, food, clothing, child expenses in two-income households... the basics.

Another way to phrase it is why should corporations be subsidizing the public good? Why is it their responsibility rather than the governments responsibility to care for the populace? Though in the end, I think the debate is really about how can you most efficiently arrive to the point you want.

As we both discussed earlier, the wealth gap is a problem. If you solve that wealth gap through UBI or higher minimum wages or other social programs, it really doesn't matter as long as you solve it somehow, and to solve it you need to take from the uberwealthy be they individuals or corporations.

I don't consider a living wage a subsidy. It's a societal value. If the replacement value of labor were the only consideration, we wouldn't have a minimum wage and some employers would pay starvation wages.

What I do consider subsidies are the favorable tax laws and tax abatements that we extend to profitable companies. Studies have shown these investments do not circulate back to the public good. The power of lobbying is the only reason they exist.

It's an interesting question about which is more efficient -- corporate-funded social programs (like UBI) or a living wage. That's beyond my expertise. Unionization had been the path to high standard of living, but modern labor laws have all but killed it.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

If we follow that logic through, should there be zero disincentive to have children?

One thing that would be interesting would be if we could determine the standard of living that we think everyone should be entitled to, and how that would actually cumulatively compare to our total economic output. We could see if all together our society is productive enough to support what we think we should all be entitled to.

Most living wage calculations I've seen are based on a family of four. It's kinda weird to tell people how many kids they can reasonably expect to support, but I'd agree that two sounds like a good number.

And yeah, matching total economic output vs standard of living for each family makes sense to me. Pretty sure it's been done, and the conclusion reached is that we'd all be fine if there were massive wealth redistribution.

Is that a yes or no on whether there should be any disincentive to have children? What I'm getting at is that if you take two people doing minimum value work, should the person without children make that much less money? Or should the minimum living wage assume that one has children? Seems like someone is getting screwed either way. FWIW MIT has a living wage calculator and they have tiers for single, one kid, two kids etc.

I’m not sure I understand the ‘disincentive to have children’ question, but I believe that you should make enough to raise two children assuming your co-parent makes as much as you do.

It’s somewhat arbitrary, I admit. Who’s to say how many children is enough? But I think every person working full time should be able to raise a family.

[League Circles]

Most living wage calculations I've seen are based on a family of four. It's kinda weird to tell people how many kids they can reasonably expect to support, but I'd agree that two sounds like a good number.

And yeah, matching total economic output vs standard of living for each family makes sense to me. Pretty sure it's been done, and the conclusion reached is that we'd all be fine if there were massive wealth redistribution.

Is that a yes or no on whether there should be any disincentive to have children? What I'm getting at is that if you take two people doing minimum value work, should the person without children make that much less money? Or should the minimum living wage assume that one has children? Seems like someone is getting screwed either way. FWIW MIT has a living wage calculator and they have tiers for single, one kid, two kids etc.

I’m not sure I understand the ‘disincentive to have children’ question, but I believe that you should make enough to raise two children assuming your co-parent makes as much as you do.

It’s somewhat arbitrary, I admit. Who’s to say how many children is enough? But I think every person working full time should be able to raise a family.

What I mean is: should a single person who makes the minimum but doesn't feel it's responsible for them to have children, and therefore chooses not to, receive a higher per person adjusted amount than a similar minimum value worker who decides to have kids? Nature has always provided a disincentive to have kids - they cost money and resources. I'm concerned about taking that away completely, especially for the least productive.