Sometimes, in our eagerness to make our point, we misrepresent the
views of others. I know that I'm always sorry when I do it...and get
caught. But take a look at what the socialists have to say about the
Second Amendment.
Carl Jarvis
********
March 2018 Daniel Shays
Daniel Shays appears on the left of this newspaper drawing made after
his capture in 1787.
By GARY BILLS
We are republishing an article that appeared in the print edition of
Socialist Action newspaper in May 2007. The article is pertinent to
the widespread
discussion on gun control today, when some are calling for repeal of
the Second Amendment.
After a horrific gun crime like the one at Virginia Tech [32 people
were killed in a shooting there on April 16, 2007], it is inevitable
that many people
start calling for gun control. At such times, it is important that
socialists weigh in on this debate.
Socialists would love to see a society free of violence—but we live
today in a world steeped in violence. We believe that the fountainhead
of violence
is the ruling class, which must resort to force and violence to
maintain its minority rule. They seek a monopoly on that force and
violence.
Socialists see "guns" as an important issue but as a secondary one
when seeking tools for social change. Throughout U.S. history it has
been massive, action-oriented
social movements that have served as the real mechanism for the
defense of the oppressed—and such movements are generally designed to
be peaceful, as a
necessity.
In the future, however—as happened in certain periods of extreme
social crisis in the past—the oppressed will most likely need access
to guns for defense,
since the ruling class can be counted on to use all manner of violence
to prevent any revolutionary change that would mean their overthrow.
Socialists
believe in the inalienable right of exploited and oppressed people to
self-defense "by any means necessary," as Malcolm X put it.
Quite understandably, the ruling class really wants "gun controls."
But the overwhelming majority of those who express the desire for gun
controls, as
reflected in the media, are liberals—including people who hold
progressive positions on many other social issues.
Nevertheless, the changes they want to see put them squarely up
against the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment
was the product of
revolutionary times. Because of the fight against British domination
that was undertaken by local militias, as well as the popular
Revolutionary Army,
the issues around guns and who wielded them were keenly honed.
The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and
bear arms shall
not be infringed."
We can note two items in this amendment that are compatible with the
thinking of socialists. The first is that of an undiluted right of the
people to have
access to arms and to use them. The second is the principle of the
people in arms as a militia.
This second principle is the one the gun controllers always screw up.
Being a little legalistic for a moment, we can see that the right of
the people to
keep and bear arms is supposedly in consequence of the need for a
"well regulated militia," necessary for the "security of a free
State."
Liberals pounce on this interpretation to say, "See, citizens do not
have a right to keep and bear arms unless they are part of a "well
regulated militia!"
Socialists reply, "Fine! Let's take a real look at what constituted a
militia, well regulated or not, in the revolutionary times that shaped
the Second
Amendment!"
As you read the Second Amendment, you may be struck by the clumsy
wording of it. It's clumsy because it is the product of many
committees. There was an
intense debate over this Amendment —as there was over the Constitution
as a whole. This debate reflected a terrific clash of competing class
interests
involving the wealthy merchants, large landowners and slaveholders,
small farmers, urban craftspeople, and others in the early republic.
The class structure of the United States in the late 1700s was much
different than it is today. Only about 5 percent of the population
consisted of wage
labor, whereas today it is upwards of 90 percent. The colonial ideal
was to be your own boss and have your own farm.
Among small property owners, farmers in their huge mass, there was a
rough equality, which led to a measure of democracy. It followed,
therefore, if an
armed force needed to be mustered to meet a threat, the armed force
would have a democratic character. This was the character of a true
citizens' militia.
However, those with more means and ambitions, the emerging ruling
elite, kept pushing for the formation of a coercive force to further
their interests.
They wanted to collect taxes for the repayment of the public debt
incurred during the Revolutionary War, debt which they held, and for
"public works";
they wanted to protect their property; they wanted to mediate all
manner of commercial conflicts. In short, they wanted governmental
power and coercive
power that they controlled!
Howard Zinn, in his "Peoples' History of the United States," has a
great section that talks about how the urban interests, through tax
courts, would form
armed bodies to go into the countryside to shake down the small
farmers. The small farmers weren't too happy about this and mustered
to form militias to
confront the tax courts' armed bands. Shays's Rebellion (1786-87) took
place when one of these ad hoc militias even went into Boston.
Shays's Rebellion
Daniel P. Shays had been a captain in the Revolutionary Army. He was
motivated to form a rebellious militia when he and other local leaders
were angered
by the tax courts' seizure of small farms and the throwing of small
debtors into prison.
Taxes were supposed to be paid in money, but the economy of central
and western Massachusetts at the time was a barter economy. If a farm
was seized, the
farmer lost his right to vote, leaving him no political way to fight
back. Many small farmers like Shays knew the injustices done to them
were coming from
urban, eastern, rich speculators led by Massachusetts Gov. James Bowdoin.
Shays's Rebellion shut down the tax courts in a number of towns, and
the movement spread throughout the state. Militias called up by
Bowdoin and his backers
refused to fight Shays's forces or failed even to muster.
Meanwhile, anti-Shays forces throughout the colonies misrepresented
the grievances and aims of the rebels, claiming they were radicals,
inflationists,
levelers who were out to cheat their creditors and redistribute
property. Shays's forces, which were popular, volunteer militias, were
finally defeated
when Governor Bowdoin and Boston-area bankers paid 4400 thugs to
attack them with weapons of war such as artillery.
Guerrilla warfare against the rich went on for a while as Shays and
other leaders of the rebellion sought sanctuary in other states. But
the rebels had
the last laugh as supporters of the rebellion were later elected to
office, such as John Hancock as governor, and they were given amnesty.
Popular rebellions like this deeply terrified the rich elites, and
they started to demand federal armed forces that could suppress small
farmers or any
other group of citizens that challenged their growing power and
wealth. George Washington was especially alarmed, and he and others
used their influence
to push for a new Constitution to supersede the Articles of Confederation.
But there was no way that the Constitution—which had its advantages
for uniting and streamlining a growing new nation, at least
commercially—would be accepted
by the population without a Bill of Rights attached to it that spelled
out protections for citizens against their government.
High on the list of rights the public wanted to protect was the right
to keep and bear arms, a right they already believed they possessed by
common law
and by some state constitutions. The best the privileged interests
could do was to try to moderate that right with the phrase in the
Second Amendment about
a "well regulated militia."
The common understanding about the character of a militia at the time
was that it was composed of ordinary citizens who voted on their
"mission," to use
a current term, and was "officered by men chosen from among
themselves," as James Madison noted. It had nothing in common with the
National Guard and the
standing armed forces of today.
"Well regulated" did not mean that the democratic character of a
citizens' militia could be regulated right out of it for the class
purposes of the rich!
Armed force against workers
A question for the liberal gun controllers of today is this: why don't
you want guns? Sure you don't want guns in the hands of individuals
who might threaten
you, but why do you feel you have nothing to fear from the armed
powers of the state?
Randi Rhodes, a prominent talk-show host on the liberal radio network
Air America, has stated that she believes guns belong in the hands of
the police
powers of the state. She says that the National Guard is the militia
that the Second Amendment speaks of.
Rhodes evidently does not recognize in those armed powers the ultimate
class power of the ruling rich, which has often used force to defeat
strikes and
other struggles of the labor movement. Many workers have died at the
hands of the police, the National Guard, the Army and privately hired
goons.
Sometimes this use of violence by the state and employers has
backfired badly; the result has been like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Workers come to the
defense of other workers instinctively and under certain conditions
they see the necessity of taking up arms for their self-protection,
unlike Rhodes.
The ruling class has made a quiet determination to allow workers to
have small arms and to accept the ugliness of gun crime if the working
class will refrain
from asking for democratic militias for defense—instead of the
National Guard and standing armies, set up to maintain the capitalist
state and to fight
its wars abroad.
Meanwhile, liberal gun controllers continue to whine about gun
violence on a small scale while refusing to demand democratic control
of the huge forces
of force and violence that carry out U.S. foreign policy and that can
be used against us domestically at any time if the ruling class only
dares.
POSTSCRIPT
In a Jan. 4, 1990, speech, Fidel Castro stated: "To some of the
Western countries that question democracy in Cuba, we can say: There
can be no democracy
superior to that where the workers, the peasants, and the students
have the weapons. They have the weapons. To all those from countries
that question democracy
in Cuba we can say: Give weapons to the workers, give weapons to the
peasants, give weapons to the students, and we'll see whether tear gas
will be hurled
against workers on strike, against an organization that struggles for
peace, against the students….
"I believe that the supreme test of democracy is arming the people!
When defense becomes the task of the entire people and weapons become
the prerogative
of the entire people, then they can talk about democracy. Until then,
they can talk about specialized police forces and armies; to crush the
people whenever
the people protest against the abuses and injustices of the bourgeois
system, whether in a Third World capitalist country or in a developed
capitalist
country." —G.B.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Fwd: [acb-chat] [ACB-chat] Positively muddying up the waters
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:07:23 +0000
Subject: [acb-chat] [ACB-chat] Positively muddying up the waters
To: Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com>
Cc: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>, "General discussion list for ACB
members and friends where a wide range of topics from blindness to
politics, issues of the day or whatever comes to mind are welcome.
This is a free form discussion list." <acb-chat@acblists.org>
Good Wednesday morning Bob and all positive minded folks,
Bob wrote: " No, what separates us is your constant negativity about most
subjects. Rather than contributing constructive solutions to
problems, you promote socialistic/communistic/Marxist articles that
undercut mainstream values." Well Bob, no matter how you dress it
up, you disagree with me. Call what I write as being divisive and
negative if you choose, but I maintain my right to express my personal
opinions on this ACB Chat List. And, for the record, I defend your
right and the right of all on this list to disagree with the opinions
of one another...as well as to agree, without being trashed
personally.
Just for the record, I am not a student of
socialistic/communistic/Marxist philosophies.
If I understand you correctly, this is your defense for anything you
disagree with. So be it. But again, I dislike labels, and even avoid
calling myself a Progressive Radical...more than a few times a week.
I am curious as to just how my opinions are undercutting mainstream
values. That would assume other folks on this list are easily
confused or swayed. I don't believe that.
I will say this however, I believe that capitalism, and most
especially corporate capitalism, is constantly attacking mainstream
values. When we are no longer Citizens, but become Consumers, and our
Independence is measured, not by our character, but by our wealth,
then we have lost our American Values. Capitalism is a dangerous road
to travel. It only works when the Few profit at the expense of the
Many. Opportunity is rigged under capitalism. It's either that, or
the masses of working class people are far less competent than you or
I. And I don't believe that. Speaking for myself, I grew up in a
White Skin, in a Working Class family. Even being born with limited
vision, before becoming totally blind, I had opportunities far more
equal than those afforded by the young Black kids crammed into the
Seattle Negro Ghetto. Without going way back to the days when my two
sisters were cut off from the opportunities we White boys had, I would
point out that women have faced discrimination from the first days of
this nation, when they were not given the right to vote.
Opportunities are so very controlled by attitudes. What I do sense is
that capitalism has worked well for you. In my situation, not drawing
down the 7 figures you earn, I became successful, in my area of
expertise. But in saying this, I do not measure everyone else by my
abilities or by my successes. There are just too many factors that
weigh our "equal opportunity".
Over the time I've been on this list I have offered what I consider to
be positive directions toward providing a better system for a majority
of citizens. Of course my offerings are fiercely opposed to
capitalism. And of course I expect those who are profiting, or who
hope to profit, by capitalism, would oppose my offerings.
That, as we say, is what makes a ball game. Two teams working for the
same goal. Victory. Your team gathers several long ball sluggers.
My method is called Teamwork. And so we go at it, tooth and tong.
Which philosophy is best is decided by which team wins.
I have mentioned several times, the method of some small businesses to
include the entire workforce in determining the direction of the
business, rather than having their future security left in the hands
of the "boss" or a small board of directors. When everyone is
invested in the company, chances for success are better. I have also
said that we need to protect our nation from being destroyed by the
Mega Corporations that have expanded beyond all national borders and
beyond all control. Too big to fail, is a myth. When these giants
come up against one another, something has to give.
While I do believe that national boundaries are becoming useless, I do
not want to see nations replaced by Feudal Corporations. I believe
that our survival, as a species, depends upon our coming together as
One People. I believe that collectively we have the smarts to solve
any impending dangers facing us. Whether it is by disease or other
natural catastrophes, or from our own past abuses, we do have the
ability to ensure all people a secure life. Does this mean that we
will have to "carry" a few deadbeats? Maybe for a time, until we
learn to better educate ourselves. But remember, under capitalism we
are all supporting a few real deadbeats.
And I do still dream of the possibility of men and women leaping among
the stars, thousands of years from now. And one day, in my wildest of
dreams, Mankind discovers how the Universe began, and whether there is
some Creative Power.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/28/18, Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carl:
>
> No, what separates us is your constant negativity about most
> subjects. Rather than contributing constructive solutions to
> problems, you promote socialistic/communistic/Marxist articles that
> undercut mainstream values. Do you ever avail yourself of anything
> else?
> You decry capitalism but have no solution for the supposed issue.
> Rather than contributing ideas that would improve the current model,
> you want to tear it all down and continue to spread your propaganda
> about equal benefits for all no matter what the motivation or skill
> set.
> Like I asked you previously, where has your political model been
> implemented successfully?
> In any case, due to the radical programs of the left, Trump, or his
> equivalent in philosophny and the rejection of political correctness,
> will be elected in 2020.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
>
> On 2/27/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good story, Bob.
>> It's the stuff novels are written from. Certainly your experiences
>> have shaped you, as have mine shaped me.
>> I enjoy our discussions, for the most part, but honestly, you and I
>> will never find ourselves on the same track. Just your insistence
>> that we all have equal opportunity puts us on different planets.
>> But my dinner horn is blowing, so I'll come back to this subject later...
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/18, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>> Hello Carl:
>>>
>>> Yes, I will say it again: everybody has an equal opportunity. It
>>> does not matter if you are poor, disabled, etc. Unfortunately, most
>>> people do not take advantage of that equal opportunity. However,
>>> there is also many cases where people (poor, minority) have.
>>> I know: in your theoretical dream world, you want equal benefits for
>>> all no matter what their motivation level or skill set may be.
>>> Since you are the consummate storyteller, I will tell you a brief
>>> story.
>>> My parents died with I was 14. My Stepfather had a heart attack: my
>>> Mother committed suicide.
>>> Although my parents were fairly well-off for that time, they left
>>> all their assets to my half brother. I wan not what you call, the
>>> favored one. I was left with absolutely nothing.
>>> During high school, I lived with a friend until I could afford to
>>> get my own very small, very cheap apartment. To support myself, I
>>> loaded concrete blocks onto trucks during the Summer and part-time
>>> during the school year.
>>> After I graduated from high school, I received a wrestling
>>> scholarship to attend college. However, I took a year off between
>>> high school and college to explore the United states, Canada, and
>>> Mexico. I hitchhiked with my guide dog across the United States, into
>>> Mexico, back across the United states, into Canada, and back home
>>> again. I met many interesting people and a few jerks too. In
>>> essence, I guess that you could say that I was trying to find myself
>>> as well as the real meaning of life and what is really important.
>>> After college, my first job was a programmer job. I worked for
>>> several companies in positions ranging from a programmer to a vice
>>> president of product development.
>>> Finally, I grew tired of the corporate environment and started my
>>> own information technology consulting company. At one point, I had
>>> over 200 employees working with me.
>>> So, don't give me this crap that if you have nothing and are blind
>>> that you can't succeed in the capitalistic system. Yes, it takes
>>> motivation and hard work but it certainly can be done.
>>> If you look at many of the new millionaires/billionaires, they
>>> started with virtually nothing. They had a good idea or product that
>>> lead to their wealth. Yes, there is wealth that is passed down from
>>> generation to generation. However, many of the very rich today are
>>> first generation wealth.
>>> And then there is your statement that wealthy people can't fail.
>>> The record speaks to the contrary. There are many wealthy people who
>>> have lost everything. Have you ever heard of the crash of 1987 and
>>> 2008?
>>> I personally find your mindset about blindness and capitalism
>>> extremely unfortunate. Rather than whining all the time about
>>> inequity, discrimination, and capitalism, perhaps, you might consider
>>> being more inspirational to people trying to free themselves from
>>> mediocrity. It's unclear to me whether you believe all that crap or
>>> just are trying to push your socialistic agenda. However, I
>>> absolutely respect your choice to believe and perpetrate anything that
>>> you believe is really constructive.
>>> As far as the pond, look at your wacky environmental friends for these
>>> issues.
>>> Carl, to be successful in this world, you need motivation, a good
>>> work ethic, determination, and to ignore people like you that say that
>>> it can not be done. It is easy to make excuses like corporate
>>> empire/oligarchy, being poor, and your list goes on and on.
>>> Success is a mindset: it is not feeling sorry for yourself and
>>> making excuses for your inability to succeed.
>>> If you took all the assets in this country and divided them up
>>> equally among the masses, you would soon find that in short order, you
>>> would have the wealthy and the poor again.
>>> Have a great day.
>>>
>>> Bob Clark
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/27/18, Claude Everett via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>> I have a better idea, let's lower the salary and in, of the top earning
>>>> corporate executives to five times the amount of the lowest earning
>>>> wage
>>>> employees.
>>>>
>>>> Verbally dictated and sent from my iPhone any errors or omissions are
>>>> solely
>>>> the responsibility of Siri and not myself
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2018, at 8:53 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-chat
>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> $55 per hour comes to around $114 per year. Sounds about right.
>>>>> That's a far cry from the $15 per hour that folks would like to earn
>>>>> as the wage minimum.
>>>>> Some of my friends say that unskilled labor ought not be paid $15 per
>>>>> hour. But they are all either nicely retired or making better than
>>>>> $55 per hour. My dad pounded into my head, "There is dignity in all
>>>>> labor". I believe that. And please spare me the song about raising
>>>>> the minimum wage, breaking the nations economic back. When I first
>>>>> went to work at a real job, in 1951, wage minimum was 75 cents an
>>>>> hour. You should have heard the agonizing moans by small businessmen
>>>>> when the minimum was raised to $1.00 per hour. "We'll go out of
>>>>> business for sure". They didn't. With each raise in the minimum,
>>>>> people spend more. A man or woman earning ten dollars an hour will
>>>>> spend it all. Fifteen dollars an hour will still be totally put back
>>>>> in the community. Wage minimum ought to be somewhere around $25 per
>>>>> hour. Sure, our friendly, caring capitalists will raise prices, and
>>>>> that will force some working class folks to tighten their belts, but
>>>>> as the bottom goes up, so will the middle. And don't worry about the
>>>>> top, they win every time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/26/18, Frank Ventura via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Wow seriously $55 average for a software engineer? I am a Systems
>>>>>> Analyst
>>>>>> for a public agency and there are five more folks at my level. Even
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> highest of us doesn't get paid anywhere near that and there is no
>>>>>> pension
>>>>>> either. I think there are some very highly paid folks that bring up
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> average. For example I have a friend in CT (private sector of course)
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is at the same level as I am and he takes down $180 per hour; but I
>>>>>> consider
>>>>>> him the exception rather than the rule.I would wonder what the mean
>>>>>> income
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>>> [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:11 PM
>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>>>> range
>>>>>> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever
>>>>>> comes
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>> Cc: William Grussenmeyer <wdg31415@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cynicism is a good thing. It keeps you from being taken advantage
>>>>>> of.
>>>>>> I pride myself on being as cynical as possible at all times. I take
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> one's word for anything, and I doubt anyone's selfless motives. By
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> way,
>>>>>> I think you under-estimate how much doctors make. Karen has posted
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> that her hourly rate is $160, and the average software engineer makes
>>>>>> $55.
>>>>>> Psychiatrists, eye doctors, heart surgeons make double or triple of
>>>>>> four
>>>>>> times hourly wages as Karen's. You can look up such information on
>>>>>> glassdoor.com or you can find salaries of doctors who work for the
>>>>>> state
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> California UC medical schools, or other state run medical schools, on
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> websites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/26/18, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Karen: I contend that healthcare is not a right that must be
>>>>>>> bestowed by the government for every individual. When you discuss
>>>>>>> maintaining a healthy body, that is the responsibility of the
>>>>>>> individual, not a right of the individual that must be bestowed by
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>> In my opinion, that is a major issue for the progressive left: they
>>>>>>> confuse individual rights with individual responsibilities. In
>>>>>>> essence, progressives want to forfeit all their responsibilities in
>>>>>>> the name of receiving equal rights/benefits which will ultimately
>>>>>>> lead
>>>>>>> to forfeiting their individual freedoms to the government in the
>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>> of government's responsibility to bestow rights.
>>>>>>> It is the government's responsibility to provide each individual
>>>>>>> equal opportunity without discrimination: it is not the government's
>>>>>>> responsibility to become a nanny state unless of course, you are a
>>>>>>> proponent of socialism.
>>>>>>> Carl: you continue to rail against me saying that I label you or
>>>>>>> call you names. To the contrary, you have specifically stated in
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> of your email threads that you are a progressive/leftist.
>>>>>>> Now, how is that calling you names or labeling you when you
>>>>>>> specifically state that this is your position. I suppose if you
>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>> me blind, you are calling me names or labeling me. I think not. It
>>>>>>> is what it is. Don't be so defensive. Just accept what you say you
>>>>>>> are rather than attacking me for something that I agree with you.
>>>>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/18, Bob Hachey via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>>> You asked "What did W. do?"
>>>>>>>> He promoted a most regressive tax cut in 2002 which helped to
>>>>>>>> foster
>>>>>>>> the growth of the rampant income inequality that now afflicts us.
>>>>>>>> This tax cut created debt, gave a few crumpbs to most of us and was
>>>>>>>> like Christmas Day for the wealthy. This latest tax cut may look
>>>>>>>> better in the beginning with the ddoubling of the standard
>>>>>>>> deduction,
>>>>>>>> but that part goes away in a few years and the generous benefits
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the very wealthy are permanent.
>>>>>>>> Also, W. promoted the constant war policies that we're still
>>>>>>>> sgruggling under. IT is true that many Democrats fogged by the
>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>> fear of 911 went along with all of the nastiness, like supporting
>>>>>>>> corrupt governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, invading Iraq,
>>>>>>>> passing the patriot Act, increasing the use of dastardly practices
>>>>>>>> such as rendition, etc. IF we aare to ever truly fight a war on
>>>>>>>> terror we should be looking much more critically at Saudi Arabia.
>>>>>>>> Recall that the 911 hijackers were Saudis. Also, Saudi Arabia is a
>>>>>>>> major funder of terrorist groups and is one of the most backward
>>>>>>>> nations in its treatment of women. I'm not sure if Saudi Arabia
>>>>>>>> should be considered our enemy, but they certainly shouldn't be
>>>>>>>> considered our friend.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, the inexperience of George W. Bush allowed evil war
>>>>>>>> monguers
>>>>>>>> like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to gain greater power.
>>>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>>>>> [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 6:24 PM
>>>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a
>>>>>>>> wide
>>>>>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>>>>>> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>> Cc: William Grussenmeyer
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're very naïve to think lots of people don't go into medicine
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the money. Maybe you didn't, but money is what pretty much
>>>>>>>> motivates
>>>>>>>> most people. Profits make the world go around. And don't we
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> have a Medicaid system for those who can't afford health insurance?
>>>>>>>> And where does it say in our constitution that health care is a
>>>>>>>> fundamental right? Everyone has far better access to medical care
>>>>>>>> than they did a hundred years or even worse two hundred years ago.
>>>>>>>> You take for granted ambulances and emergency rooms opened on
>>>>>>>> Saturday and sunday as some fundamental right, but count yourself
>>>>>>>> lucky you didn't live two hundred years ago, and these ready
>>>>>>>> available emergency services are all here due to capitalism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/18, Eric Calhoun via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And what did Dubya do?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eric from Los Angeles. Be good to each other. Never sweat the
>>>>>>>>> small stuff.
>>>>>>>>> Speak to your mountain; God moves mountains. Come expecting a
>>>>>>>>> miracle!
>>>>>>>>> Always have faith! Always reach faster, higher, stronger. Eric
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> Facebook: eric@pmpmail.com. If you're on Facebook, please come
>>>>>>>>> join
>>>>>>>>> my Facebook group:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/631397660379317/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Great is His faithfulness!
>>>>>>>>> Original Message:
>>>>>>>>> From: Bob Hachey via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>> To: "'General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a
>>>>>>>>> wide range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day
>>>>>>>>> or whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form
>>>>>>>>> discussion list.'"
>>>>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>> CC: Bob Hachey <bhachey@verizon.net>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:36:49 +0000
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>>>>> Well, one is a bit disparaging of "leftist socialism." But we've
>>>>>>>>> tried it your way under W. and where did that lead? Can you say
>>>>>>>>> Depression of 2008?
>>>>>>>>> The only things that trickle down are water and bodily functions.
>>>>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Bob via acb-chat [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:20 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a
>>>>>>>>> wide
>>>>>>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>>>>>>> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Bob
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello William:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carl, our resident liberal/progressive/leftist, does not care
>>>>>>>>> about any of this capitalist philosophy. He supports and
>>>>>>>>> constantly
>>>>>>>>> promotes the equal opportunity/rights/benefits theory for all no
>>>>>>>>> matter what the level of motivation and/or capability of the
>>>>>>>>> individual may be.
>>>>>>>>> Rather than defending his perspective when asked questions, he
>>>>>>>>> constantly posts articles that convey the
>>>>>>>>> socialism/communism/Marxism agenda.
>>>>>>>>> We should probably just start a new listserv for Carl so he can
>>>>>>>>> spread his indoctrination rhetoric to those who really care.
>>>>>>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P.s. By the way Karen, healthcare is not a right. Again, just
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> Californian socialist philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/18, Karen Rose via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Under a true single-payer system everyone would be permitted to
>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> a doctor when needed from the time we are born to the time we
>>>>>>>>>> die.
>>>>>>>>>> Healthcare is a right not a privilege for the wealthy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:48 AM, William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>>>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A single payer health system would be a terrible idea. Doctors
>>>>>>>>>>> would get paid less. Surgeons would get paid less. And drug
>>>>>>>>>>> researchers would get paid less. Which would all result in a
>>>>>>>>>>> braind drain in the health care system. Why should these people
>>>>>>>>>>> work for less pay when they can go to another profession and
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> money?
>>>>>>>>>>> You are seeing this in UK right now where they are a shortage of
>>>>>>>>>>> doctors for this exact reason. Not only would there be a
>>>>>>>>>>> shortage
>>>>>>>>>>> of doctors, the doctors that would be left would be on average
>>>>>>>>>>> less competent and less intelligent and lazier as they would not
>>>>>>>>>>> get paid for working any harder. The brightest students in
>>>>>>>>>>> college would choose to go to another profession instead of med
>>>>>>>>>>> school as they would not get paid as much as they are paid now.
>>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, all the research and advancements in new medical
>>>>>>>>>>> procedures would slow down or become non-existent as no would be
>>>>>>>>>>> able to make a profit from them. Money makes the world go
>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>> and without profits no one is motivated to do anything. Our
>>>>>>>>>>> health system would drop off from the best in the world to a
>>>>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>>> world country health system.
>>>>>>>>>>> Communism and socialism do not work as money is taken out of the
>>>>>>>>>>> equation and people simply do not work as hard nor care about
>>>>>>>>>>> innovating. Without capitalism, we wouldn't have computers, the
>>>>>>>>>>> internet, or even cars for that matter.
>>>>>>>>>>> These single payer systems are ridiculous and people simply do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> understand the economic effects that taking profits out of the
>>>>>>>>>>> equation would have on the quality of their health care.
>>>>>>>>>>> The only argument that people have for this single payer system
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> that 30 million people are uninsured. But the fact of the
>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>> is they fail to acknowledge the fact that some of these people
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> not want to buy health insurance and do not care. Under the ACA
>>>>>>>>>>> and the medicaid expansion, almost everyone should have been
>>>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>> to afford health insurance. But some people choose not to do it
>>>>>>>>>>> because they did not want to. How many of these 30 million
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> really can't afford health insurance and how many of them are
>>>>>>>>>>> simply choosing to spend their money on other things? How many
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> them on their taxes lied and said they had health insurance when
>>>>>>>>>>> they did not? The fact of the matter is that I am not
>>>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>>> in policing people's irresponsibility. There would always be
>>>>>>>>>>> people who choose not to buy health insurance. Even people who
>>>>>>>>>>> work for employers who provide health insurance at a low cost or
>>>>>>>>>>> no cost decide to and can opt out of the health insurance
>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>> if they want to and some of them do this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do not get me started on people's financial irresponsibility.
>>>>>>>>>>> There was an article in the Wall Street Journal stating that on
>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>>>>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>>>>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>>>>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> William Grussenmeyer
>>>>>>>> PhD Student, Computer Science
>>>>>>>> University of Nevada, Reno
>>>>>>>> NSF Fellow
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> William Grussenmeyer
>>>>>> PhD Student, Computer Science
>>>>>> University of Nevada, Reno
>>>>>> NSF Fellow
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>
_______________________________________________
acb-chat mailing list
acb-chat@acblists.org
http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
From: Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:07:23 +0000
Subject: [acb-chat] [ACB-chat] Positively muddying up the waters
To: Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com>
Cc: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>, "General discussion list for ACB
members and friends where a wide range of topics from blindness to
politics, issues of the day or whatever comes to mind are welcome.
This is a free form discussion list." <acb-chat@acblists.org>
Good Wednesday morning Bob and all positive minded folks,
Bob wrote: " No, what separates us is your constant negativity about most
subjects. Rather than contributing constructive solutions to
problems, you promote socialistic/communistic/Marxist articles that
undercut mainstream values." Well Bob, no matter how you dress it
up, you disagree with me. Call what I write as being divisive and
negative if you choose, but I maintain my right to express my personal
opinions on this ACB Chat List. And, for the record, I defend your
right and the right of all on this list to disagree with the opinions
of one another...as well as to agree, without being trashed
personally.
Just for the record, I am not a student of
socialistic/communistic/Marxist philosophies.
If I understand you correctly, this is your defense for anything you
disagree with. So be it. But again, I dislike labels, and even avoid
calling myself a Progressive Radical...more than a few times a week.
I am curious as to just how my opinions are undercutting mainstream
values. That would assume other folks on this list are easily
confused or swayed. I don't believe that.
I will say this however, I believe that capitalism, and most
especially corporate capitalism, is constantly attacking mainstream
values. When we are no longer Citizens, but become Consumers, and our
Independence is measured, not by our character, but by our wealth,
then we have lost our American Values. Capitalism is a dangerous road
to travel. It only works when the Few profit at the expense of the
Many. Opportunity is rigged under capitalism. It's either that, or
the masses of working class people are far less competent than you or
I. And I don't believe that. Speaking for myself, I grew up in a
White Skin, in a Working Class family. Even being born with limited
vision, before becoming totally blind, I had opportunities far more
equal than those afforded by the young Black kids crammed into the
Seattle Negro Ghetto. Without going way back to the days when my two
sisters were cut off from the opportunities we White boys had, I would
point out that women have faced discrimination from the first days of
this nation, when they were not given the right to vote.
Opportunities are so very controlled by attitudes. What I do sense is
that capitalism has worked well for you. In my situation, not drawing
down the 7 figures you earn, I became successful, in my area of
expertise. But in saying this, I do not measure everyone else by my
abilities or by my successes. There are just too many factors that
weigh our "equal opportunity".
Over the time I've been on this list I have offered what I consider to
be positive directions toward providing a better system for a majority
of citizens. Of course my offerings are fiercely opposed to
capitalism. And of course I expect those who are profiting, or who
hope to profit, by capitalism, would oppose my offerings.
That, as we say, is what makes a ball game. Two teams working for the
same goal. Victory. Your team gathers several long ball sluggers.
My method is called Teamwork. And so we go at it, tooth and tong.
Which philosophy is best is decided by which team wins.
I have mentioned several times, the method of some small businesses to
include the entire workforce in determining the direction of the
business, rather than having their future security left in the hands
of the "boss" or a small board of directors. When everyone is
invested in the company, chances for success are better. I have also
said that we need to protect our nation from being destroyed by the
Mega Corporations that have expanded beyond all national borders and
beyond all control. Too big to fail, is a myth. When these giants
come up against one another, something has to give.
While I do believe that national boundaries are becoming useless, I do
not want to see nations replaced by Feudal Corporations. I believe
that our survival, as a species, depends upon our coming together as
One People. I believe that collectively we have the smarts to solve
any impending dangers facing us. Whether it is by disease or other
natural catastrophes, or from our own past abuses, we do have the
ability to ensure all people a secure life. Does this mean that we
will have to "carry" a few deadbeats? Maybe for a time, until we
learn to better educate ourselves. But remember, under capitalism we
are all supporting a few real deadbeats.
And I do still dream of the possibility of men and women leaping among
the stars, thousands of years from now. And one day, in my wildest of
dreams, Mankind discovers how the Universe began, and whether there is
some Creative Power.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/28/18, Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carl:
>
> No, what separates us is your constant negativity about most
> subjects. Rather than contributing constructive solutions to
> problems, you promote socialistic/communistic/Marxist articles that
> undercut mainstream values. Do you ever avail yourself of anything
> else?
> You decry capitalism but have no solution for the supposed issue.
> Rather than contributing ideas that would improve the current model,
> you want to tear it all down and continue to spread your propaganda
> about equal benefits for all no matter what the motivation or skill
> set.
> Like I asked you previously, where has your political model been
> implemented successfully?
> In any case, due to the radical programs of the left, Trump, or his
> equivalent in philosophny and the rejection of political correctness,
> will be elected in 2020.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
>
> On 2/27/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good story, Bob.
>> It's the stuff novels are written from. Certainly your experiences
>> have shaped you, as have mine shaped me.
>> I enjoy our discussions, for the most part, but honestly, you and I
>> will never find ourselves on the same track. Just your insistence
>> that we all have equal opportunity puts us on different planets.
>> But my dinner horn is blowing, so I'll come back to this subject later...
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/18, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>> Hello Carl:
>>>
>>> Yes, I will say it again: everybody has an equal opportunity. It
>>> does not matter if you are poor, disabled, etc. Unfortunately, most
>>> people do not take advantage of that equal opportunity. However,
>>> there is also many cases where people (poor, minority) have.
>>> I know: in your theoretical dream world, you want equal benefits for
>>> all no matter what their motivation level or skill set may be.
>>> Since you are the consummate storyteller, I will tell you a brief
>>> story.
>>> My parents died with I was 14. My Stepfather had a heart attack: my
>>> Mother committed suicide.
>>> Although my parents were fairly well-off for that time, they left
>>> all their assets to my half brother. I wan not what you call, the
>>> favored one. I was left with absolutely nothing.
>>> During high school, I lived with a friend until I could afford to
>>> get my own very small, very cheap apartment. To support myself, I
>>> loaded concrete blocks onto trucks during the Summer and part-time
>>> during the school year.
>>> After I graduated from high school, I received a wrestling
>>> scholarship to attend college. However, I took a year off between
>>> high school and college to explore the United states, Canada, and
>>> Mexico. I hitchhiked with my guide dog across the United States, into
>>> Mexico, back across the United states, into Canada, and back home
>>> again. I met many interesting people and a few jerks too. In
>>> essence, I guess that you could say that I was trying to find myself
>>> as well as the real meaning of life and what is really important.
>>> After college, my first job was a programmer job. I worked for
>>> several companies in positions ranging from a programmer to a vice
>>> president of product development.
>>> Finally, I grew tired of the corporate environment and started my
>>> own information technology consulting company. At one point, I had
>>> over 200 employees working with me.
>>> So, don't give me this crap that if you have nothing and are blind
>>> that you can't succeed in the capitalistic system. Yes, it takes
>>> motivation and hard work but it certainly can be done.
>>> If you look at many of the new millionaires/billionaires, they
>>> started with virtually nothing. They had a good idea or product that
>>> lead to their wealth. Yes, there is wealth that is passed down from
>>> generation to generation. However, many of the very rich today are
>>> first generation wealth.
>>> And then there is your statement that wealthy people can't fail.
>>> The record speaks to the contrary. There are many wealthy people who
>>> have lost everything. Have you ever heard of the crash of 1987 and
>>> 2008?
>>> I personally find your mindset about blindness and capitalism
>>> extremely unfortunate. Rather than whining all the time about
>>> inequity, discrimination, and capitalism, perhaps, you might consider
>>> being more inspirational to people trying to free themselves from
>>> mediocrity. It's unclear to me whether you believe all that crap or
>>> just are trying to push your socialistic agenda. However, I
>>> absolutely respect your choice to believe and perpetrate anything that
>>> you believe is really constructive.
>>> As far as the pond, look at your wacky environmental friends for these
>>> issues.
>>> Carl, to be successful in this world, you need motivation, a good
>>> work ethic, determination, and to ignore people like you that say that
>>> it can not be done. It is easy to make excuses like corporate
>>> empire/oligarchy, being poor, and your list goes on and on.
>>> Success is a mindset: it is not feeling sorry for yourself and
>>> making excuses for your inability to succeed.
>>> If you took all the assets in this country and divided them up
>>> equally among the masses, you would soon find that in short order, you
>>> would have the wealthy and the poor again.
>>> Have a great day.
>>>
>>> Bob Clark
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/27/18, Claude Everett via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>> I have a better idea, let's lower the salary and in, of the top earning
>>>> corporate executives to five times the amount of the lowest earning
>>>> wage
>>>> employees.
>>>>
>>>> Verbally dictated and sent from my iPhone any errors or omissions are
>>>> solely
>>>> the responsibility of Siri and not myself
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2018, at 8:53 PM, Carl Jarvis via acb-chat
>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> $55 per hour comes to around $114 per year. Sounds about right.
>>>>> That's a far cry from the $15 per hour that folks would like to earn
>>>>> as the wage minimum.
>>>>> Some of my friends say that unskilled labor ought not be paid $15 per
>>>>> hour. But they are all either nicely retired or making better than
>>>>> $55 per hour. My dad pounded into my head, "There is dignity in all
>>>>> labor". I believe that. And please spare me the song about raising
>>>>> the minimum wage, breaking the nations economic back. When I first
>>>>> went to work at a real job, in 1951, wage minimum was 75 cents an
>>>>> hour. You should have heard the agonizing moans by small businessmen
>>>>> when the minimum was raised to $1.00 per hour. "We'll go out of
>>>>> business for sure". They didn't. With each raise in the minimum,
>>>>> people spend more. A man or woman earning ten dollars an hour will
>>>>> spend it all. Fifteen dollars an hour will still be totally put back
>>>>> in the community. Wage minimum ought to be somewhere around $25 per
>>>>> hour. Sure, our friendly, caring capitalists will raise prices, and
>>>>> that will force some working class folks to tighten their belts, but
>>>>> as the bottom goes up, so will the middle. And don't worry about the
>>>>> top, they win every time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/26/18, Frank Ventura via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Wow seriously $55 average for a software engineer? I am a Systems
>>>>>> Analyst
>>>>>> for a public agency and there are five more folks at my level. Even
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> highest of us doesn't get paid anywhere near that and there is no
>>>>>> pension
>>>>>> either. I think there are some very highly paid folks that bring up
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> average. For example I have a friend in CT (private sector of course)
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is at the same level as I am and he takes down $180 per hour; but I
>>>>>> consider
>>>>>> him the exception rather than the rule.I would wonder what the mean
>>>>>> income
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>>> [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:11 PM
>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>>>> range
>>>>>> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever
>>>>>> comes
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>> Cc: William Grussenmeyer <wdg31415@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cynicism is a good thing. It keeps you from being taken advantage
>>>>>> of.
>>>>>> I pride myself on being as cynical as possible at all times. I take
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> one's word for anything, and I doubt anyone's selfless motives. By
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> way,
>>>>>> I think you under-estimate how much doctors make. Karen has posted
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> that her hourly rate is $160, and the average software engineer makes
>>>>>> $55.
>>>>>> Psychiatrists, eye doctors, heart surgeons make double or triple of
>>>>>> four
>>>>>> times hourly wages as Karen's. You can look up such information on
>>>>>> glassdoor.com or you can find salaries of doctors who work for the
>>>>>> state
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> California UC medical schools, or other state run medical schools, on
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> websites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/26/18, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Karen: I contend that healthcare is not a right that must be
>>>>>>> bestowed by the government for every individual. When you discuss
>>>>>>> maintaining a healthy body, that is the responsibility of the
>>>>>>> individual, not a right of the individual that must be bestowed by
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>> In my opinion, that is a major issue for the progressive left: they
>>>>>>> confuse individual rights with individual responsibilities. In
>>>>>>> essence, progressives want to forfeit all their responsibilities in
>>>>>>> the name of receiving equal rights/benefits which will ultimately
>>>>>>> lead
>>>>>>> to forfeiting their individual freedoms to the government in the
>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>> of government's responsibility to bestow rights.
>>>>>>> It is the government's responsibility to provide each individual
>>>>>>> equal opportunity without discrimination: it is not the government's
>>>>>>> responsibility to become a nanny state unless of course, you are a
>>>>>>> proponent of socialism.
>>>>>>> Carl: you continue to rail against me saying that I label you or
>>>>>>> call you names. To the contrary, you have specifically stated in
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> of your email threads that you are a progressive/leftist.
>>>>>>> Now, how is that calling you names or labeling you when you
>>>>>>> specifically state that this is your position. I suppose if you
>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>> me blind, you are calling me names or labeling me. I think not. It
>>>>>>> is what it is. Don't be so defensive. Just accept what you say you
>>>>>>> are rather than attacking me for something that I agree with you.
>>>>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/18, Bob Hachey via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>>> You asked "What did W. do?"
>>>>>>>> He promoted a most regressive tax cut in 2002 which helped to
>>>>>>>> foster
>>>>>>>> the growth of the rampant income inequality that now afflicts us.
>>>>>>>> This tax cut created debt, gave a few crumpbs to most of us and was
>>>>>>>> like Christmas Day for the wealthy. This latest tax cut may look
>>>>>>>> better in the beginning with the ddoubling of the standard
>>>>>>>> deduction,
>>>>>>>> but that part goes away in a few years and the generous benefits
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the very wealthy are permanent.
>>>>>>>> Also, W. promoted the constant war policies that we're still
>>>>>>>> sgruggling under. IT is true that many Democrats fogged by the
>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>> fear of 911 went along with all of the nastiness, like supporting
>>>>>>>> corrupt governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, invading Iraq,
>>>>>>>> passing the patriot Act, increasing the use of dastardly practices
>>>>>>>> such as rendition, etc. IF we aare to ever truly fight a war on
>>>>>>>> terror we should be looking much more critically at Saudi Arabia.
>>>>>>>> Recall that the 911 hijackers were Saudis. Also, Saudi Arabia is a
>>>>>>>> major funder of terrorist groups and is one of the most backward
>>>>>>>> nations in its treatment of women. I'm not sure if Saudi Arabia
>>>>>>>> should be considered our enemy, but they certainly shouldn't be
>>>>>>>> considered our friend.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, the inexperience of George W. Bush allowed evil war
>>>>>>>> monguers
>>>>>>>> like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to gain greater power.
>>>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>>>>> [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 6:24 PM
>>>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a
>>>>>>>> wide
>>>>>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>>>>>> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>> Cc: William Grussenmeyer
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're very naïve to think lots of people don't go into medicine
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the money. Maybe you didn't, but money is what pretty much
>>>>>>>> motivates
>>>>>>>> most people. Profits make the world go around. And don't we
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> have a Medicaid system for those who can't afford health insurance?
>>>>>>>> And where does it say in our constitution that health care is a
>>>>>>>> fundamental right? Everyone has far better access to medical care
>>>>>>>> than they did a hundred years or even worse two hundred years ago.
>>>>>>>> You take for granted ambulances and emergency rooms opened on
>>>>>>>> Saturday and sunday as some fundamental right, but count yourself
>>>>>>>> lucky you didn't live two hundred years ago, and these ready
>>>>>>>> available emergency services are all here due to capitalism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/18, Eric Calhoun via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And what did Dubya do?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eric from Los Angeles. Be good to each other. Never sweat the
>>>>>>>>> small stuff.
>>>>>>>>> Speak to your mountain; God moves mountains. Come expecting a
>>>>>>>>> miracle!
>>>>>>>>> Always have faith! Always reach faster, higher, stronger. Eric
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> Facebook: eric@pmpmail.com. If you're on Facebook, please come
>>>>>>>>> join
>>>>>>>>> my Facebook group:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/631397660379317/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Great is His faithfulness!
>>>>>>>>> Original Message:
>>>>>>>>> From: Bob Hachey via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>> To: "'General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a
>>>>>>>>> wide range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day
>>>>>>>>> or whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form
>>>>>>>>> discussion list.'"
>>>>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>> CC: Bob Hachey <bhachey@verizon.net>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:36:49 +0000
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>>>>> Well, one is a bit disparaging of "leftist socialism." But we've
>>>>>>>>> tried it your way under W. and where did that lead? Can you say
>>>>>>>>> Depression of 2008?
>>>>>>>>> The only things that trickle down are water and bodily functions.
>>>>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Bob via acb-chat [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:20 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a
>>>>>>>>> wide
>>>>>>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>>>>>>> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Bob
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello William:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carl, our resident liberal/progressive/leftist, does not care
>>>>>>>>> about any of this capitalist philosophy. He supports and
>>>>>>>>> constantly
>>>>>>>>> promotes the equal opportunity/rights/benefits theory for all no
>>>>>>>>> matter what the level of motivation and/or capability of the
>>>>>>>>> individual may be.
>>>>>>>>> Rather than defending his perspective when asked questions, he
>>>>>>>>> constantly posts articles that convey the
>>>>>>>>> socialism/communism/Marxism agenda.
>>>>>>>>> We should probably just start a new listserv for Carl so he can
>>>>>>>>> spread his indoctrination rhetoric to those who really care.
>>>>>>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P.s. By the way Karen, healthcare is not a right. Again, just
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> Californian socialist philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/18, Karen Rose via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Under a true single-payer system everyone would be permitted to
>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> a doctor when needed from the time we are born to the time we
>>>>>>>>>> die.
>>>>>>>>>> Healthcare is a right not a privilege for the wealthy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:48 AM, William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>>>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A single payer health system would be a terrible idea. Doctors
>>>>>>>>>>> would get paid less. Surgeons would get paid less. And drug
>>>>>>>>>>> researchers would get paid less. Which would all result in a
>>>>>>>>>>> braind drain in the health care system. Why should these people
>>>>>>>>>>> work for less pay when they can go to another profession and
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> money?
>>>>>>>>>>> You are seeing this in UK right now where they are a shortage of
>>>>>>>>>>> doctors for this exact reason. Not only would there be a
>>>>>>>>>>> shortage
>>>>>>>>>>> of doctors, the doctors that would be left would be on average
>>>>>>>>>>> less competent and less intelligent and lazier as they would not
>>>>>>>>>>> get paid for working any harder. The brightest students in
>>>>>>>>>>> college would choose to go to another profession instead of med
>>>>>>>>>>> school as they would not get paid as much as they are paid now.
>>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, all the research and advancements in new medical
>>>>>>>>>>> procedures would slow down or become non-existent as no would be
>>>>>>>>>>> able to make a profit from them. Money makes the world go
>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>> and without profits no one is motivated to do anything. Our
>>>>>>>>>>> health system would drop off from the best in the world to a
>>>>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>>> world country health system.
>>>>>>>>>>> Communism and socialism do not work as money is taken out of the
>>>>>>>>>>> equation and people simply do not work as hard nor care about
>>>>>>>>>>> innovating. Without capitalism, we wouldn't have computers, the
>>>>>>>>>>> internet, or even cars for that matter.
>>>>>>>>>>> These single payer systems are ridiculous and people simply do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> understand the economic effects that taking profits out of the
>>>>>>>>>>> equation would have on the quality of their health care.
>>>>>>>>>>> The only argument that people have for this single payer system
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> that 30 million people are uninsured. But the fact of the
>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>> is they fail to acknowledge the fact that some of these people
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> not want to buy health insurance and do not care. Under the ACA
>>>>>>>>>>> and the medicaid expansion, almost everyone should have been
>>>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>> to afford health insurance. But some people choose not to do it
>>>>>>>>>>> because they did not want to. How many of these 30 million
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> really can't afford health insurance and how many of them are
>>>>>>>>>>> simply choosing to spend their money on other things? How many
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> them on their taxes lied and said they had health insurance when
>>>>>>>>>>> they did not? The fact of the matter is that I am not
>>>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>>> in policing people's irresponsibility. There would always be
>>>>>>>>>>> people who choose not to buy health insurance. Even people who
>>>>>>>>>>> work for employers who provide health insurance at a low cost or
>>>>>>>>>>> no cost decide to and can opt out of the health insurance
>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>> if they want to and some of them do this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do not get me started on people's financial irresponsibility.
>>>>>>>>>>> There was an article in the Wall Street Journal stating that on
>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>>>>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>>>>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>>>>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> William Grussenmeyer
>>>>>>>> PhD Student, Computer Science
>>>>>>>> University of Nevada, Reno
>>>>>>>> NSF Fellow
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> William Grussenmeyer
>>>>>> PhD Student, Computer Science
>>>>>> University of Nevada, Reno
>>>>>> NSF Fellow
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>
_______________________________________________
acb-chat mailing list
acb-chat@acblists.org
http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Re: [acb-chat] [ACB-chat] clearing up the muddy waters
You're a funny guy, Bob. I'm not certain if you are a rascal or a scoundrel.
You wrote: "With all due respect, you are out of your mind." That is
one of the oldest tricks used by propagandists.
"With all due respect"? So just drop the phony baloney and tell the
list that you think Carl is nuts, crazy as a Loony Bird. But this
does not address the fact that you are defending the right of the
business establishment to pay as little to their employees as they can
arrange to pay.
And to hide behind "free enterprise"? For shame. Tell that to those
large numbers of disabled workers in sweat shops like Good Will and
the Light Houses for the Blind, that still pay sub minimal wages. My
bottom line is this: If we can't care for the needs of *ALL our
People, then whether we are a business or a nation, we need to close
up shop.
Carl Jarvis(and I am having a nice day)
***
article
How Does the Minimum Wage Impact the Economy?
The federal minimum wage provides compensation increases at a
different rate than inflation increases, leaving many workers behind
economically. However,
increasing pay too dramatically can have negative impacts.
June 14, 2017
Minimum wage business
LDHeadshot
By Lauren Dixon,
Senior Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the United States first set a minimum wage through the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the hourly rate sat at 25 cents. Prior to that,
during the
Great Depression, people facing up to a 25 percent unemployment were
desperate for work, so employers could take advantage and pay very
little. The minimum
wage was then established to prevent that exploitation, said David
Cooper, senior economic analyst and deputy director at Economic
Analysis and Research
Network at the Economic Policy Institute.
Without a wage floor, employers would continue to pay less and less,
destroying the purchasing power of the consumers who would make less
money, Cooper
said. The minimum wage then helps mitigate that
imbalance of power
between employers and low-wage workers.
That 1938 rule underwent revisions, including a periodic raising of
the federal minimum wage, which rests at an hourly rate of $7.25,
where it was set
in 2009, according to the
Department of Labor.
Some states and cities took it upon themselves to
raise their minimum wages
to much higher rates, such as New York City, which will have a
$15-per-hour wage by 2018.
As municipalities, unions and advocates push for a higher minimum wage
to reduce poverty, many business leaders push back out of fear that
their businesses
will flounder when having to increase payroll costs.
What is the Economic Impact of a Rising Minimum Wage? - YouTube frame
What is the Economic Impact of a Rising Minimum Wage?
Watch later as Carl Jarvis
Share
Play
What is the Economic Impact of a Rising Minimum Wage? - YouTube frame end
Although wages rose by $7 since 1938, purchasing power differs
dramatically over time. When adjusting for inflation, today's federal
minimum wage is about
the same as in the 1950s. At its highest point in 1968, the minimum
wage equaled $10.90 in 2015 dollars, more than $3 off from current
pay. Advocates for
higher wages say today's minimum wage is not a living wage. "Part of
the problem is that we've let the minimum wage erode for so long that
that gap has
grown substantially such that now it's hard to even consider bringing
the federal wage floor up to a level that would allow someone to have
a decent quality
of life wherever they may live," Cooper said.
When the minimum wage doesn't keep pace with inflation, its power
erodes. "It's worth less and less and less," said Sylvia Allegretto,
labor economist
and co-chair of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the
University of California, Berkeley. "And don't forget that these
low-wage workers today,
compared to their counterparts of decades ago, are more educated,
they're more productive, the economic pie has expanded greatly, yet
these low-wage workers
are making less today than similar workers did several decades ago."
Trends like this are why unions and activist groups march and
legislate for higher
minimum wages.
What is the Economic Impact of a Rising Minimum Wage?
Theoretically, raising the minimum wage would mean more money in the
pockets of workers. In practice, it's more complex.
Allegretto coauthored a report,
"Effects of a $15 Minimum Wage in California and Fresno,"
for the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, finding that
a $15 minimum wage in California would increase earnings for 38
percent of the state,
and businesses would see a reduction in turnover and increases in
productivity. Raising prices by 0.6 percent through 2023 would offset
increased payroll
costs, the report said.
In 1992, Alan B. Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs
at Princeton University and columnist for The New York Times, found
that when New
Jersey raised its minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05, job growth at fast
food restaurants was equally as strong in Pennsylvania, which did not
raise wages.
"If the minimum wage is set at a moderate level it does not
necessarily reduce employment," he wrote in The New York Times'
"The Minimum Wage: How Much Is Too Much?"
"While some employers cut jobs in response to a minimum-wage
increase, others find that a higher wage floor enables them to fill
their vacancies and reduce
turnover, which raises employment, even though it eats into their
profits. The net effect of all this, as has been found in most studies
of the minimum
wage over the last quarter-century, is that when it is set at a
moderate level, the minimum wage has little or no effect on
employment," Krueger wrote.
RELATED:
Corporate Profits Are Up — But Wages Remain Stagnant. Here Are 4 Reasons Why.
However, not all agree on the impacts of a rising minimum wage, and
results of an increase could vary dramatically based on location,
industry and amount
of wage boost. If a new minimum wage is set low and close to labor
costs, there would be minimal harm to business; if set too high, then
damage could be
significant, said Mark Schug, professor emeritus at University of
Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and president of Mark Schug Consulting
Services.
One main criticism of a minimum wage hike is that it would harm
businesses, especially small, independently owned stores. The National
Retail Federation
found in a survey
that 37 percent of small retailers would see serious threats to their
ability to continue operating under a minimum wage of $15 per hour.
To offset some of these rising labor costs that some cities recently
enacted, some restaurants add a surcharge of 3 to 4 percent, according
to The Wall
Street Journal's March 2017 story,
"New on Your Dinner Tab: A Labor Surcharge."
Raising menu prices lead customers to choose less expensive items
than they normally would, so the surcharge aids in mitigating
increased costs of doing
business, the story said.
Not all small businesses are restaurants, though, so an increase in
labor costs might force business leaders to reduce staff. The Heritage
Foundation published
an August 2016 report,
"How $15-per-Hour Minimum Starting Wages Would Affect Each State,"
finding that a nationwide minimum wage of $15 per hour would lead to
9 million jobs lost, and states with lower costs of living would see
the most negative
impact. "Efforts to create jobs and reduce poverty should not center
on forcing employers to pay higher starting wages," the story
concludes.
Flaws With the Federal Minimum Wage
A federal minimum wage will have different values based on location,
due to the cost of living, hence New York City's $15 minimum wage. The
cost of living
there is far different than McAllen, Texas, which has the lowest cost
in the U.S., according to
Kiplinger,
a business forecast publication. Therefore, minimum wages set
regionally make more sense, Schug said. "I think it's very clumsy to
have a federally mandated
minimum wage."
If the U.S. could do away with the minimum wage entirely, Schug said
that wages could be set by supply and demand. If employers see
difficulty holding
onto their staff, then they should simply pay more or have greater
benefits, he added. The interaction between the employer and employee
would set that
market rate for pay. "Why mess with a price that's set by supply and
demand?" Schug asked. Other professions compensation based on their
market rates,
and the minimum-wage workforce only makes up 3.3 percent of all hourly
paid workers, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Too much effort is spent on discussing the issue of minimum wage,
which impacts only a small group of workers, Schug said.
Nevertheless, it looks as though the minimum wage will remain and
continue to rise over time in some capacity. That doesn't mean there
aren't flaws with
the system. Not all who earn a minimum wage would benefit from
increases in the same ways, so Schug said economists prefer policies
that are designed to
help the people they're intended to benefit. According to BLS data,
about half of hourly workers who earn at or below the federal minimum
wage are 25 years
old or younger. Some of these workers are students and young people
from affluent families, Schug said, and they need a wage increase much
less than a
single mother, for example. Therefore, Schug said, an earned income
tax credit would be more effective in reducing poverty, as it better
targets those
who need additional funds the most by providing additional funds to
recipients based on income and number of children.
Economic Policy Institute's Cooper also suggested supports from
government programs to help mitigate wage woes. News from earlier this
month cited a report
from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which found that in
only 12 counties in the U.S. will a minimum wage allow a person to
rent a one-bedroom
apartment in a safe area without spending more than 30 percent of
their income, according to
The Washington Post.
This differs by location, with $11.46 being the hourly wage needed to
rent in Georgia, compared to $58.04 in the San Francisco Bay area.
Part of this issue is that household income has not kept pace with
rent increases. However, Cooper said this isn't only the fault of a
stagnant minimum
wage. Housing policy also has not responded to rising rental costs,
which increased at a rate of 6 percent between 2007 and 2015, whereas
federal funding
for housing assistance declined 3 percent between 2010 and 2016, the
same Washington Post story stated. This is all while household income
dipped 4 percent.
"Certainly the minimum wage being left to erode has created a
situation where a lot of low-wage workers are not able to afford a
place to live, certainly
not in the cities where most of the job growth has been over the last
10 years," Cooper said.
Other proposals to aid issues around costs of living include ones like the
Raise the Wage Act,
via current U.S. Senate Democrats and House Representatives. This bill
aims to provide 41 million low-wage workers raises, reaching $15 an
hour by 2024,
while closing a loophole that allows for tipped, disabled and young
workers to receive far less than the federal minimum wage. The act
would also index
wage increases to the median wage growth after 2024, the act states.
The Roles of Business Leaders
Naturally, business leaders hoping to keep their operating costs low
are likely to oppose a minimum wage increase, but Cooper said this is
because they're
not looking at the broader market picture. With fatter paychecks,
workers have increased purchasing power, thus benefiting businesses.
And with a federal
minimum wage increase, it impacts more than just a single business;
all other organizations with similar employee makeups will face
similar changes to
their payrolls.
"Good business leaders want their employees to have a decent life and
want their employees to make enough money to afford to live," Cooper
said. "They
just don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage." If leaders
think more holistically about how a rising minimum wage would affect
the labor market
and the economy as a whole, they're likely to be more supportive of
minimum wage increases.
Lauren Dixon is an associate editor at Talent Economy. To comment, email
editor@talenteconomy.io.
article end
main region end
empty complementary information
Recommended
article
Full Speed Ahead: Redefining the Employer-Employee Contract
article end
article
Anna Schlegel: How to Take a Company Global
article end
On 2/27/18, Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Carl:
>
> With all due respect, you are out of your mind.
> A minimum wage of $25 an hour is ridiculous. Whether you like it or
> not, wages are paid based upon factors including reasonable minimum
> wage requirements, type of work being performed, length of experience,
> and (omg) the law of supply and demand.
> Studies have already shown that the $15 an hour minimum wage paid
> requirement in some localities have adversely impacted teenage
> employment.
> Due to the advent of more sophisticated automation techniques, The
> reality of paying a $25 an hour minimum wage would lead to more
> unemployment for minimal type jobs. This is already happening in the
> fast food industry. Even Amazon in Seattle has a totally automated
> store.
> In short, this is the exact problem that liberal progressive/leftist
> proponents have. They are out of touch with reality. What they
> preach is unsustainable.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
> On 2/26/18, Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>> $55 per hour comes to around $114 per year. Sounds about right.
>> That's a far cry from the $15 per hour that folks would like to earn
>> as the wage minimum.
>> Some of my friends say that unskilled labor ought not be paid $15 per
>> hour. But they are all either nicely retired or making better than
>> $55 per hour. My dad pounded into my head, "There is dignity in all
>> labor". I believe that. And please spare me the song about raising
>> the minimum wage, breaking the nations economic back. When I first
>> went to work at a real job, in 1951, wage minimum was 75 cents an
>> hour. You should have heard the agonizing moans by small businessmen
>> when the minimum was raised to $1.00 per hour. "We'll go out of
>> business for sure". They didn't. With each raise in the minimum,
>> people spend more. A man or woman earning ten dollars an hour will
>> spend it all. Fifteen dollars an hour will still be totally put back
>> in the community. Wage minimum ought to be somewhere around $25 per
>> hour. Sure, our friendly, caring capitalists will raise prices, and
>> that will force some working class folks to tighten their belts, but
>> as the bottom goes up, so will the middle. And don't worry about the
>> top, they win every time.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>> .
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/18, Frank Ventura via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>> Wow seriously $55 average for a software engineer? I am a Systems
>>> Analyst
>>> for a public agency and there are five more folks at my level. Even the
>>> highest of us doesn't get paid anywhere near that and there is no
>>> pension
>>> either. I think there are some very highly paid folks that bring up the
>>> average. For example I have a friend in CT (private sector of course)
>>> that
>>> is at the same level as I am and he takes down $180 per hour; but I
>>> consider
>>> him the exception rather than the rule.I would wonder what the mean
>>> income
>>> is.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:11 PM
>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>> range
>>> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever
>>> comes
>>> to
>>> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>> Cc: William Grussenmeyer <wdg31415@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>
>>> Cynicism is a good thing. It keeps you from being taken advantage of.
>>> I pride myself on being as cynical as possible at all times. I take no
>>> one's word for anything, and I doubt anyone's selfless motives. By the
>>> way,
>>> I think you under-estimate how much doctors make. Karen has posted
>>> before
>>> that her hourly rate is $160, and the average software engineer makes
>>> $55.
>>> Psychiatrists, eye doctors, heart surgeons make double or triple of four
>>> times hourly wages as Karen's. You can look up such information on
>>> glassdoor.com or you can find salaries of doctors who work for the state
>>> of
>>> California UC medical schools, or other state run medical schools, on
>>> other
>>> websites.
>>>
>>> On 2/26/18, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>> Hello:
>>>>
>>>> Karen: I contend that healthcare is not a right that must be
>>>> bestowed by the government for every individual. When you discuss
>>>> maintaining a healthy body, that is the responsibility of the
>>>> individual, not a right of the individual that must be bestowed by the
>>>> government.
>>>> In my opinion, that is a major issue for the progressive left: they
>>>> confuse individual rights with individual responsibilities. In
>>>> essence, progressives want to forfeit all their responsibilities in
>>>> the name of receiving equal rights/benefits which will ultimately lead
>>>> to forfeiting their individual freedoms to the government in the name
>>>> of government's responsibility to bestow rights.
>>>> It is the government's responsibility to provide each individual
>>>> equal opportunity without discrimination: it is not the government's
>>>> responsibility to become a nanny state unless of course, you are a
>>>> proponent of socialism.
>>>> Carl: you continue to rail against me saying that I label you or
>>>> call you names. To the contrary, you have specifically stated in many
>>>> of your email threads that you are a progressive/leftist.
>>>> Now, how is that calling you names or labeling you when you
>>>> specifically state that this is your position. I suppose if you call
>>>> me blind, you are calling me names or labeling me. I think not. It
>>>> is what it is. Don't be so defensive. Just accept what you say you
>>>> are rather than attacking me for something that I agree with you.
>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/26/18, Bob Hachey via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>> You asked "What did W. do?"
>>>>> He promoted a most regressive tax cut in 2002 which helped to foster
>>>>> the growth of the rampant income inequality that now afflicts us.
>>>>> This tax cut created debt, gave a few crumpbs to most of us and was
>>>>> like Christmas Day for the wealthy. This latest tax cut may look
>>>>> better in the beginning with the ddoubling of the standard deduction,
>>>>> but that part goes away in a few years and the generous benefits for
>>>>> the very wealthy are permanent.
>>>>> Also, W. promoted the constant war policies that we're still
>>>>> sgruggling under. IT is true that many Democrats fogged by the recent
>>>>> fear of 911 went along with all of the nastiness, like supporting
>>>>> corrupt governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, invading Iraq,
>>>>> passing the patriot Act, increasing the use of dastardly practices
>>>>> such as rendition, etc. IF we aare to ever truly fight a war on
>>>>> terror we should be looking much more critically at Saudi Arabia.
>>>>> Recall that the 911 hijackers were Saudis. Also, Saudi Arabia is a
>>>>> major funder of terrorist groups and is one of the most backward
>>>>> nations in its treatment of women. I'm not sure if Saudi Arabia
>>>>> should be considered our enemy, but they certainly shouldn't be
>>>>> considered our friend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, the inexperience of George W. Bush allowed evil war monguers
>>>>> like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to gain greater power.
>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>> [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 6:24 PM
>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>>> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
>>>>> list.
>>>>> Cc: William Grussenmeyer
>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>
>>>>> You're very naïve to think lots of people don't go into medicine for
>>>>> the money. Maybe you didn't, but money is what pretty much motivates
>>>>> most people. Profits make the world go around. And don't we already
>>>>> have a Medicaid system for those who can't afford health insurance?
>>>>> And where does it say in our constitution that health care is a
>>>>> fundamental right? Everyone has far better access to medical care
>>>>> than they did a hundred years or even worse two hundred years ago.
>>>>> You take for granted ambulances and emergency rooms opened on
>>>>> Saturday and sunday as some fundamental right, but count yourself
>>>>> lucky you didn't live two hundred years ago, and these ready
>>>>> available emergency services are all here due to capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/25/18, Eric Calhoun via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>> And what did Dubya do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric from Los Angeles. Be good to each other. Never sweat the
>>>>>> small stuff.
>>>>>> Speak to your mountain; God moves mountains. Come expecting a
>>>>>> miracle!
>>>>>> Always have faith! Always reach faster, higher, stronger. Eric on
>>>>>> Facebook: eric@pmpmail.com. If you're on Facebook, please come join
>>>>>> my Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/631397660379317/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great is His faithfulness!
>>>>>> Original Message:
>>>>>> From: Bob Hachey via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>> To: "'General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a
>>>>>> wide range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day
>>>>>> or whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form
>>>>>> discussion list.'"
>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>> CC: Bob Hachey <bhachey@verizon.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:36:49 +0000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>> Well, one is a bit disparaging of "leftist socialism." But we've
>>>>>> tried it your way under W. and where did that lead? Can you say
>>>>>> Depression of 2008?
>>>>>> The only things that trickle down are water and bodily functions.
>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Bob via acb-chat [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:20 PM
>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>>>> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>> Cc: Bob
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello William:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carl, our resident liberal/progressive/leftist, does not care
>>>>>> about any of this capitalist philosophy. He supports and constantly
>>>>>> promotes the equal opportunity/rights/benefits theory for all no
>>>>>> matter what the level of motivation and/or capability of the
>>>>>> individual may be.
>>>>>> Rather than defending his perspective when asked questions, he
>>>>>> constantly posts articles that convey the
>>>>>> socialism/communism/Marxism agenda.
>>>>>> We should probably just start a new listserv for Carl so he can
>>>>>> spread his indoctrination rhetoric to those who really care.
>>>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.s. By the way Karen, healthcare is not a right. Again, just more
>>>>>> Californian socialist philosophy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/25/18, Karen Rose via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Under a true single-payer system everyone would be permitted to see
>>>>>>> a doctor when needed from the time we are born to the time we die.
>>>>>>> Healthcare is a right not a privilege for the wealthy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:48 AM, William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A single payer health system would be a terrible idea. Doctors
>>>>>>>> would get paid less. Surgeons would get paid less. And drug
>>>>>>>> researchers would get paid less. Which would all result in a
>>>>>>>> braind drain in the health care system. Why should these people
>>>>>>>> work for less pay when they can go to another profession and make
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> money?
>>>>>>>> You are seeing this in UK right now where they are a shortage of
>>>>>>>> doctors for this exact reason. Not only would there be a shortage
>>>>>>>> of doctors, the doctors that would be left would be on average
>>>>>>>> less competent and less intelligent and lazier as they would not
>>>>>>>> get paid for working any harder. The brightest students in
>>>>>>>> college would choose to go to another profession instead of med
>>>>>>>> school as they would not get paid as much as they are paid now.
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, all the research and advancements in new medical
>>>>>>>> procedures would slow down or become non-existent as no would be
>>>>>>>> able to make a profit from them. Money makes the world go around
>>>>>>>> and without profits no one is motivated to do anything. Our
>>>>>>>> health system would drop off from the best in the world to a third
>>>>>>>> world country health system.
>>>>>>>> Communism and socialism do not work as money is taken out of the
>>>>>>>> equation and people simply do not work as hard nor care about
>>>>>>>> innovating. Without capitalism, we wouldn't have computers, the
>>>>>>>> internet, or even cars for that matter.
>>>>>>>> These single payer systems are ridiculous and people simply do not
>>>>>>>> understand the economic effects that taking profits out of the
>>>>>>>> equation would have on the quality of their health care.
>>>>>>>> The only argument that people have for this single payer system is
>>>>>>>> that 30 million people are uninsured. But the fact of the matter
>>>>>>>> is they fail to acknowledge the fact that some of these people do
>>>>>>>> not want to buy health insurance and do not care. Under the ACA
>>>>>>>> and the medicaid expansion, almost everyone should have been able
>>>>>>>> to afford health insurance. But some people choose not to do it
>>>>>>>> because they did not want to. How many of these 30 million people
>>>>>>>> really can't afford health insurance and how many of them are
>>>>>>>> simply choosing to spend their money on other things? How many of
>>>>>>>> them on their taxes lied and said they had health insurance when
>>>>>>>> they did not? The fact of the matter is that I am not interested
>>>>>>>> in policing people's irresponsibility. There would always be
>>>>>>>> people who choose not to buy health insurance. Even people who
>>>>>>>> work for employers who provide health insurance at a low cost or
>>>>>>>> no cost decide to and can opt out of the health insurance program
>>>>>>>> if they want to and some of them do this.
>>>>>>>> Do not get me started on people's financial irresponsibility.
>>>>>>>> There was an article in the Wall Street Journal stating that on
>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> William Grussenmeyer
>>>>> PhD Student, Computer Science
>>>>> University of Nevada, Reno
>>>>> NSF Fellow
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William Grussenmeyer
>>> PhD Student, Computer Science
>>> University of Nevada, Reno
>>> NSF Fellow
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> acb-chat mailing list
>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>
You wrote: "With all due respect, you are out of your mind." That is
one of the oldest tricks used by propagandists.
"With all due respect"? So just drop the phony baloney and tell the
list that you think Carl is nuts, crazy as a Loony Bird. But this
does not address the fact that you are defending the right of the
business establishment to pay as little to their employees as they can
arrange to pay.
And to hide behind "free enterprise"? For shame. Tell that to those
large numbers of disabled workers in sweat shops like Good Will and
the Light Houses for the Blind, that still pay sub minimal wages. My
bottom line is this: If we can't care for the needs of *ALL our
People, then whether we are a business or a nation, we need to close
up shop.
Carl Jarvis(and I am having a nice day)
***
article
How Does the Minimum Wage Impact the Economy?
The federal minimum wage provides compensation increases at a
different rate than inflation increases, leaving many workers behind
economically. However,
increasing pay too dramatically can have negative impacts.
June 14, 2017
Minimum wage business
LDHeadshot
By Lauren Dixon,
Senior Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the United States first set a minimum wage through the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the hourly rate sat at 25 cents. Prior to that,
during the
Great Depression, people facing up to a 25 percent unemployment were
desperate for work, so employers could take advantage and pay very
little. The minimum
wage was then established to prevent that exploitation, said David
Cooper, senior economic analyst and deputy director at Economic
Analysis and Research
Network at the Economic Policy Institute.
Without a wage floor, employers would continue to pay less and less,
destroying the purchasing power of the consumers who would make less
money, Cooper
said. The minimum wage then helps mitigate that
imbalance of power
between employers and low-wage workers.
That 1938 rule underwent revisions, including a periodic raising of
the federal minimum wage, which rests at an hourly rate of $7.25,
where it was set
in 2009, according to the
Department of Labor.
Some states and cities took it upon themselves to
raise their minimum wages
to much higher rates, such as New York City, which will have a
$15-per-hour wage by 2018.
As municipalities, unions and advocates push for a higher minimum wage
to reduce poverty, many business leaders push back out of fear that
their businesses
will flounder when having to increase payroll costs.
What is the Economic Impact of a Rising Minimum Wage? - YouTube frame
What is the Economic Impact of a Rising Minimum Wage?
Watch later as Carl Jarvis
Share
Play
What is the Economic Impact of a Rising Minimum Wage? - YouTube frame end
Although wages rose by $7 since 1938, purchasing power differs
dramatically over time. When adjusting for inflation, today's federal
minimum wage is about
the same as in the 1950s. At its highest point in 1968, the minimum
wage equaled $10.90 in 2015 dollars, more than $3 off from current
pay. Advocates for
higher wages say today's minimum wage is not a living wage. "Part of
the problem is that we've let the minimum wage erode for so long that
that gap has
grown substantially such that now it's hard to even consider bringing
the federal wage floor up to a level that would allow someone to have
a decent quality
of life wherever they may live," Cooper said.
When the minimum wage doesn't keep pace with inflation, its power
erodes. "It's worth less and less and less," said Sylvia Allegretto,
labor economist
and co-chair of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the
University of California, Berkeley. "And don't forget that these
low-wage workers today,
compared to their counterparts of decades ago, are more educated,
they're more productive, the economic pie has expanded greatly, yet
these low-wage workers
are making less today than similar workers did several decades ago."
Trends like this are why unions and activist groups march and
legislate for higher
minimum wages.
What is the Economic Impact of a Rising Minimum Wage?
Theoretically, raising the minimum wage would mean more money in the
pockets of workers. In practice, it's more complex.
Allegretto coauthored a report,
"Effects of a $15 Minimum Wage in California and Fresno,"
for the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, finding that
a $15 minimum wage in California would increase earnings for 38
percent of the state,
and businesses would see a reduction in turnover and increases in
productivity. Raising prices by 0.6 percent through 2023 would offset
increased payroll
costs, the report said.
In 1992, Alan B. Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs
at Princeton University and columnist for The New York Times, found
that when New
Jersey raised its minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05, job growth at fast
food restaurants was equally as strong in Pennsylvania, which did not
raise wages.
"If the minimum wage is set at a moderate level it does not
necessarily reduce employment," he wrote in The New York Times'
"The Minimum Wage: How Much Is Too Much?"
"While some employers cut jobs in response to a minimum-wage
increase, others find that a higher wage floor enables them to fill
their vacancies and reduce
turnover, which raises employment, even though it eats into their
profits. The net effect of all this, as has been found in most studies
of the minimum
wage over the last quarter-century, is that when it is set at a
moderate level, the minimum wage has little or no effect on
employment," Krueger wrote.
RELATED:
Corporate Profits Are Up — But Wages Remain Stagnant. Here Are 4 Reasons Why.
However, not all agree on the impacts of a rising minimum wage, and
results of an increase could vary dramatically based on location,
industry and amount
of wage boost. If a new minimum wage is set low and close to labor
costs, there would be minimal harm to business; if set too high, then
damage could be
significant, said Mark Schug, professor emeritus at University of
Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and president of Mark Schug Consulting
Services.
One main criticism of a minimum wage hike is that it would harm
businesses, especially small, independently owned stores. The National
Retail Federation
found in a survey
that 37 percent of small retailers would see serious threats to their
ability to continue operating under a minimum wage of $15 per hour.
To offset some of these rising labor costs that some cities recently
enacted, some restaurants add a surcharge of 3 to 4 percent, according
to The Wall
Street Journal's March 2017 story,
"New on Your Dinner Tab: A Labor Surcharge."
Raising menu prices lead customers to choose less expensive items
than they normally would, so the surcharge aids in mitigating
increased costs of doing
business, the story said.
Not all small businesses are restaurants, though, so an increase in
labor costs might force business leaders to reduce staff. The Heritage
Foundation published
an August 2016 report,
"How $15-per-Hour Minimum Starting Wages Would Affect Each State,"
finding that a nationwide minimum wage of $15 per hour would lead to
9 million jobs lost, and states with lower costs of living would see
the most negative
impact. "Efforts to create jobs and reduce poverty should not center
on forcing employers to pay higher starting wages," the story
concludes.
Flaws With the Federal Minimum Wage
A federal minimum wage will have different values based on location,
due to the cost of living, hence New York City's $15 minimum wage. The
cost of living
there is far different than McAllen, Texas, which has the lowest cost
in the U.S., according to
Kiplinger,
a business forecast publication. Therefore, minimum wages set
regionally make more sense, Schug said. "I think it's very clumsy to
have a federally mandated
minimum wage."
If the U.S. could do away with the minimum wage entirely, Schug said
that wages could be set by supply and demand. If employers see
difficulty holding
onto their staff, then they should simply pay more or have greater
benefits, he added. The interaction between the employer and employee
would set that
market rate for pay. "Why mess with a price that's set by supply and
demand?" Schug asked. Other professions compensation based on their
market rates,
and the minimum-wage workforce only makes up 3.3 percent of all hourly
paid workers, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Too much effort is spent on discussing the issue of minimum wage,
which impacts only a small group of workers, Schug said.
Nevertheless, it looks as though the minimum wage will remain and
continue to rise over time in some capacity. That doesn't mean there
aren't flaws with
the system. Not all who earn a minimum wage would benefit from
increases in the same ways, so Schug said economists prefer policies
that are designed to
help the people they're intended to benefit. According to BLS data,
about half of hourly workers who earn at or below the federal minimum
wage are 25 years
old or younger. Some of these workers are students and young people
from affluent families, Schug said, and they need a wage increase much
less than a
single mother, for example. Therefore, Schug said, an earned income
tax credit would be more effective in reducing poverty, as it better
targets those
who need additional funds the most by providing additional funds to
recipients based on income and number of children.
Economic Policy Institute's Cooper also suggested supports from
government programs to help mitigate wage woes. News from earlier this
month cited a report
from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which found that in
only 12 counties in the U.S. will a minimum wage allow a person to
rent a one-bedroom
apartment in a safe area without spending more than 30 percent of
their income, according to
The Washington Post.
This differs by location, with $11.46 being the hourly wage needed to
rent in Georgia, compared to $58.04 in the San Francisco Bay area.
Part of this issue is that household income has not kept pace with
rent increases. However, Cooper said this isn't only the fault of a
stagnant minimum
wage. Housing policy also has not responded to rising rental costs,
which increased at a rate of 6 percent between 2007 and 2015, whereas
federal funding
for housing assistance declined 3 percent between 2010 and 2016, the
same Washington Post story stated. This is all while household income
dipped 4 percent.
"Certainly the minimum wage being left to erode has created a
situation where a lot of low-wage workers are not able to afford a
place to live, certainly
not in the cities where most of the job growth has been over the last
10 years," Cooper said.
Other proposals to aid issues around costs of living include ones like the
Raise the Wage Act,
via current U.S. Senate Democrats and House Representatives. This bill
aims to provide 41 million low-wage workers raises, reaching $15 an
hour by 2024,
while closing a loophole that allows for tipped, disabled and young
workers to receive far less than the federal minimum wage. The act
would also index
wage increases to the median wage growth after 2024, the act states.
The Roles of Business Leaders
Naturally, business leaders hoping to keep their operating costs low
are likely to oppose a minimum wage increase, but Cooper said this is
because they're
not looking at the broader market picture. With fatter paychecks,
workers have increased purchasing power, thus benefiting businesses.
And with a federal
minimum wage increase, it impacts more than just a single business;
all other organizations with similar employee makeups will face
similar changes to
their payrolls.
"Good business leaders want their employees to have a decent life and
want their employees to make enough money to afford to live," Cooper
said. "They
just don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage." If leaders
think more holistically about how a rising minimum wage would affect
the labor market
and the economy as a whole, they're likely to be more supportive of
minimum wage increases.
Lauren Dixon is an associate editor at Talent Economy. To comment, email
editor@talenteconomy.io.
article end
main region end
empty complementary information
Recommended
article
Full Speed Ahead: Redefining the Employer-Employee Contract
article end
article
Anna Schlegel: How to Take a Company Global
article end
On 2/27/18, Bob <buildyourownwealth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Carl:
>
> With all due respect, you are out of your mind.
> A minimum wage of $25 an hour is ridiculous. Whether you like it or
> not, wages are paid based upon factors including reasonable minimum
> wage requirements, type of work being performed, length of experience,
> and (omg) the law of supply and demand.
> Studies have already shown that the $15 an hour minimum wage paid
> requirement in some localities have adversely impacted teenage
> employment.
> Due to the advent of more sophisticated automation techniques, The
> reality of paying a $25 an hour minimum wage would lead to more
> unemployment for minimal type jobs. This is already happening in the
> fast food industry. Even Amazon in Seattle has a totally automated
> store.
> In short, this is the exact problem that liberal progressive/leftist
> proponents have. They are out of touch with reality. What they
> preach is unsustainable.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
> On 2/26/18, Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>> $55 per hour comes to around $114 per year. Sounds about right.
>> That's a far cry from the $15 per hour that folks would like to earn
>> as the wage minimum.
>> Some of my friends say that unskilled labor ought not be paid $15 per
>> hour. But they are all either nicely retired or making better than
>> $55 per hour. My dad pounded into my head, "There is dignity in all
>> labor". I believe that. And please spare me the song about raising
>> the minimum wage, breaking the nations economic back. When I first
>> went to work at a real job, in 1951, wage minimum was 75 cents an
>> hour. You should have heard the agonizing moans by small businessmen
>> when the minimum was raised to $1.00 per hour. "We'll go out of
>> business for sure". They didn't. With each raise in the minimum,
>> people spend more. A man or woman earning ten dollars an hour will
>> spend it all. Fifteen dollars an hour will still be totally put back
>> in the community. Wage minimum ought to be somewhere around $25 per
>> hour. Sure, our friendly, caring capitalists will raise prices, and
>> that will force some working class folks to tighten their belts, but
>> as the bottom goes up, so will the middle. And don't worry about the
>> top, they win every time.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>> .
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/18, Frank Ventura via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>> Wow seriously $55 average for a software engineer? I am a Systems
>>> Analyst
>>> for a public agency and there are five more folks at my level. Even the
>>> highest of us doesn't get paid anywhere near that and there is no
>>> pension
>>> either. I think there are some very highly paid folks that bring up the
>>> average. For example I have a friend in CT (private sector of course)
>>> that
>>> is at the same level as I am and he takes down $180 per hour; but I
>>> consider
>>> him the exception rather than the rule.I would wonder what the mean
>>> income
>>> is.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:11 PM
>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>> range
>>> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever
>>> comes
>>> to
>>> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>> Cc: William Grussenmeyer <wdg31415@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>
>>> Cynicism is a good thing. It keeps you from being taken advantage of.
>>> I pride myself on being as cynical as possible at all times. I take no
>>> one's word for anything, and I doubt anyone's selfless motives. By the
>>> way,
>>> I think you under-estimate how much doctors make. Karen has posted
>>> before
>>> that her hourly rate is $160, and the average software engineer makes
>>> $55.
>>> Psychiatrists, eye doctors, heart surgeons make double or triple of four
>>> times hourly wages as Karen's. You can look up such information on
>>> glassdoor.com or you can find salaries of doctors who work for the state
>>> of
>>> California UC medical schools, or other state run medical schools, on
>>> other
>>> websites.
>>>
>>> On 2/26/18, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>> Hello:
>>>>
>>>> Karen: I contend that healthcare is not a right that must be
>>>> bestowed by the government for every individual. When you discuss
>>>> maintaining a healthy body, that is the responsibility of the
>>>> individual, not a right of the individual that must be bestowed by the
>>>> government.
>>>> In my opinion, that is a major issue for the progressive left: they
>>>> confuse individual rights with individual responsibilities. In
>>>> essence, progressives want to forfeit all their responsibilities in
>>>> the name of receiving equal rights/benefits which will ultimately lead
>>>> to forfeiting their individual freedoms to the government in the name
>>>> of government's responsibility to bestow rights.
>>>> It is the government's responsibility to provide each individual
>>>> equal opportunity without discrimination: it is not the government's
>>>> responsibility to become a nanny state unless of course, you are a
>>>> proponent of socialism.
>>>> Carl: you continue to rail against me saying that I label you or
>>>> call you names. To the contrary, you have specifically stated in many
>>>> of your email threads that you are a progressive/leftist.
>>>> Now, how is that calling you names or labeling you when you
>>>> specifically state that this is your position. I suppose if you call
>>>> me blind, you are calling me names or labeling me. I think not. It
>>>> is what it is. Don't be so defensive. Just accept what you say you
>>>> are rather than attacking me for something that I agree with you.
>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/26/18, Bob Hachey via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>> You asked "What did W. do?"
>>>>> He promoted a most regressive tax cut in 2002 which helped to foster
>>>>> the growth of the rampant income inequality that now afflicts us.
>>>>> This tax cut created debt, gave a few crumpbs to most of us and was
>>>>> like Christmas Day for the wealthy. This latest tax cut may look
>>>>> better in the beginning with the ddoubling of the standard deduction,
>>>>> but that part goes away in a few years and the generous benefits for
>>>>> the very wealthy are permanent.
>>>>> Also, W. promoted the constant war policies that we're still
>>>>> sgruggling under. IT is true that many Democrats fogged by the recent
>>>>> fear of 911 went along with all of the nastiness, like supporting
>>>>> corrupt governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, invading Iraq,
>>>>> passing the patriot Act, increasing the use of dastardly practices
>>>>> such as rendition, etc. IF we aare to ever truly fight a war on
>>>>> terror we should be looking much more critically at Saudi Arabia.
>>>>> Recall that the 911 hijackers were Saudis. Also, Saudi Arabia is a
>>>>> major funder of terrorist groups and is one of the most backward
>>>>> nations in its treatment of women. I'm not sure if Saudi Arabia
>>>>> should be considered our enemy, but they certainly shouldn't be
>>>>> considered our friend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, the inexperience of George W. Bush allowed evil war monguers
>>>>> like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to gain greater power.
>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>> [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 6:24 PM
>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>>> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
>>>>> list.
>>>>> Cc: William Grussenmeyer
>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>
>>>>> You're very naïve to think lots of people don't go into medicine for
>>>>> the money. Maybe you didn't, but money is what pretty much motivates
>>>>> most people. Profits make the world go around. And don't we already
>>>>> have a Medicaid system for those who can't afford health insurance?
>>>>> And where does it say in our constitution that health care is a
>>>>> fundamental right? Everyone has far better access to medical care
>>>>> than they did a hundred years or even worse two hundred years ago.
>>>>> You take for granted ambulances and emergency rooms opened on
>>>>> Saturday and sunday as some fundamental right, but count yourself
>>>>> lucky you didn't live two hundred years ago, and these ready
>>>>> available emergency services are all here due to capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/25/18, Eric Calhoun via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>> And what did Dubya do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric from Los Angeles. Be good to each other. Never sweat the
>>>>>> small stuff.
>>>>>> Speak to your mountain; God moves mountains. Come expecting a
>>>>>> miracle!
>>>>>> Always have faith! Always reach faster, higher, stronger. Eric on
>>>>>> Facebook: eric@pmpmail.com. If you're on Facebook, please come join
>>>>>> my Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/631397660379317/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great is His faithfulness!
>>>>>> Original Message:
>>>>>> From: Bob Hachey via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>> To: "'General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a
>>>>>> wide range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day
>>>>>> or whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form
>>>>>> discussion list.'"
>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>>>> CC: Bob Hachey <bhachey@verizon.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:36:49 +0000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>> Well, one is a bit disparaging of "leftist socialism." But we've
>>>>>> tried it your way under W. and where did that lead? Can you say
>>>>>> Depression of 2008?
>>>>>> The only things that trickle down are water and bodily functions.
>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Bob via acb-chat [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:20 PM
>>>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>>>> whatever comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>> Cc: Bob
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] muddying up the waters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello William:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carl, our resident liberal/progressive/leftist, does not care
>>>>>> about any of this capitalist philosophy. He supports and constantly
>>>>>> promotes the equal opportunity/rights/benefits theory for all no
>>>>>> matter what the level of motivation and/or capability of the
>>>>>> individual may be.
>>>>>> Rather than defending his perspective when asked questions, he
>>>>>> constantly posts articles that convey the
>>>>>> socialism/communism/Marxism agenda.
>>>>>> We should probably just start a new listserv for Carl so he can
>>>>>> spread his indoctrination rhetoric to those who really care.
>>>>>> Have a great day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Clark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.s. By the way Karen, healthcare is not a right. Again, just more
>>>>>> Californian socialist philosophy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/25/18, Karen Rose via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Under a true single-payer system everyone would be permitted to see
>>>>>>> a doctor when needed from the time we are born to the time we die.
>>>>>>> Healthcare is a right not a privilege for the wealthy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:48 AM, William Grussenmeyer via acb-chat
>>>>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A single payer health system would be a terrible idea. Doctors
>>>>>>>> would get paid less. Surgeons would get paid less. And drug
>>>>>>>> researchers would get paid less. Which would all result in a
>>>>>>>> braind drain in the health care system. Why should these people
>>>>>>>> work for less pay when they can go to another profession and make
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> money?
>>>>>>>> You are seeing this in UK right now where they are a shortage of
>>>>>>>> doctors for this exact reason. Not only would there be a shortage
>>>>>>>> of doctors, the doctors that would be left would be on average
>>>>>>>> less competent and less intelligent and lazier as they would not
>>>>>>>> get paid for working any harder. The brightest students in
>>>>>>>> college would choose to go to another profession instead of med
>>>>>>>> school as they would not get paid as much as they are paid now.
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, all the research and advancements in new medical
>>>>>>>> procedures would slow down or become non-existent as no would be
>>>>>>>> able to make a profit from them. Money makes the world go around
>>>>>>>> and without profits no one is motivated to do anything. Our
>>>>>>>> health system would drop off from the best in the world to a third
>>>>>>>> world country health system.
>>>>>>>> Communism and socialism do not work as money is taken out of the
>>>>>>>> equation and people simply do not work as hard nor care about
>>>>>>>> innovating. Without capitalism, we wouldn't have computers, the
>>>>>>>> internet, or even cars for that matter.
>>>>>>>> These single payer systems are ridiculous and people simply do not
>>>>>>>> understand the economic effects that taking profits out of the
>>>>>>>> equation would have on the quality of their health care.
>>>>>>>> The only argument that people have for this single payer system is
>>>>>>>> that 30 million people are uninsured. But the fact of the matter
>>>>>>>> is they fail to acknowledge the fact that some of these people do
>>>>>>>> not want to buy health insurance and do not care. Under the ACA
>>>>>>>> and the medicaid expansion, almost everyone should have been able
>>>>>>>> to afford health insurance. But some people choose not to do it
>>>>>>>> because they did not want to. How many of these 30 million people
>>>>>>>> really can't afford health insurance and how many of them are
>>>>>>>> simply choosing to spend their money on other things? How many of
>>>>>>>> them on their taxes lied and said they had health insurance when
>>>>>>>> they did not? The fact of the matter is that I am not interested
>>>>>>>> in policing people's irresponsibility. There would always be
>>>>>>>> people who choose not to buy health insurance. Even people who
>>>>>>>> work for employers who provide health insurance at a low cost or
>>>>>>>> no cost decide to and can opt out of the health insurance program
>>>>>>>> if they want to and some of them do this.
>>>>>>>> Do not get me started on people's financial irresponsibility.
>>>>>>>> There was an article in the Wall Street Journal stating that on
>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> William Grussenmeyer
>>>>> PhD Student, Computer Science
>>>>> University of Nevada, Reno
>>>>> NSF Fellow
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
>>>> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
>>>> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
>>>> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William Grussenmeyer
>>> PhD Student, Computer Science
>>> University of Nevada, Reno
>>> NSF Fellow
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> acb-chat mailing list
>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
>
Saturday, February 24, 2018
muddying up the waters
Do we in the Working Class have any supporters left in congress?
Here's an article well worth reading and thinking about.
Carl Jarvis
***
A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public and Prevent 'Medicare for All'
Michael Fleshman / CC 2.0
The Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington-based Democratic Party
think tank funded by Wall Street, including private health insurers and
their lobbying group, unveiled a new healthcare proposal designed to confuse
supporters of "Medicare for All" and protect private health insurance
profits. It is receiving widespread coverage in 'progressive' media outlets.
We must be aware of what is happening so that we are not fooled into another
'public option' dead end.*
The fact that CAP is using Medicare for All language is both a blessing and
a curse. It means Medicare for All is so popular that they feel a need to
co-opt it, and it means that they are trying to co-opt it, which will give
Democrats an opportunity to use it to confuse people.
This effort could be preparation for the possibility that Democrats win a
majority in Congress in 2018 or 2020. It is normal for the pendulum to swing
to the party opposite the President's party during the first term in office.
If Democrats win a majority, they will be expected to deliver on health
care, but they face a dilemma of having to please their campaign donors,
which includes the health insurance industry, or pleasing their voters,
where 75% support single payer health care.
The public is aware that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) protects the profits
of the medical-industrial complex (private health insurers, Big Pharma and
for-profit providers) and not the healthcare needs of the public. "Fixing
the ACA" is not popular. Last year during repeal attempts, people made it
clear at town halls and rallies that they want a single payer healthcare
system such as National Improved Medicare for All (NIMA). By offering a
solution that sounds good to the uninformed, "Medicare Extra for All," but
continues to benefit their Wall Street donors, Democrats hope to fool people
or buy enough support to undermine efforts for NIMA.
This is an expected development. If we look at the phases of stage six of
successful social movements by Bill Moyers (see slide 8), we see that as a
movement nears victory, the power holders appear to get in line with the
public's solution while actually attacking it. If the movement recognizes
what is happening, that this is a false solution and not what the movement
is demanding, then we have a chance to win NIMA. If the movement falls for
the false solution, it loses.
Our tasks at this moment are to understand what the power holders are
offering, recognize why it is a false solution and reject it.
"Medicare Extra for All" versus National Improved Medicare for All
The basic outline for the new proposal is that people would be able to buy a
Medicare plan, a form of 'public option,' including the Medicare Advantage
plans offered by private health insurers. People who choose to buy a
Medicare plan would pay premiums and co-pays, as they do now for private
health insurance. The new Medicare system would replace Medicaid for people
with low incomes.
Private health insurance would still exist for employers, who currently
cover the largest number of people, federal employees and the military.
While workers would have the option to buy a Medicare plan, it is unclear
how many would do so given that most employers who provide health insurance
have their own plans and that private health insurers are experts at
marketing their plans to the public.
NIMA, as embodied in HR 676: "The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All
Act," would create a single national healthcare system, paid for up front
through taxes, that covers every person from birth to death and covers all
medically-necessary care. NIMA relegates private insurance to the sidelines
where it could potentially provide supplemental coverage for those who want
extras, but it would no longer serve as a barrier for people who need care.
Here are the flaws in the CAP proposal:
1.CAP's plan will continue to leave people without health insurance.Instead
of being a universal system of national coverage like NIMA, coverage under
the CAP plan relies on people's ability to afford health insurance. Only
people with low incomes would not pay, as they do now under Medicaid. Just
as it is today, those who do not qualify as low income, but still can't
afford health insurance premiums, would be left out. Almost 30 million are
without coverage today. There is no guarantee that health insurance premiums
will be affordable.
2.CAPS's plan will continue to leave people with inadequate coverage. Under
NIMA, all people have the same comprehensive coverage without financial
barriers to care. The CAP plan allows private health insurers to do what
they do best - restrict where people can seek health care, shift the cost of
care onto patients and deny payment for care. This is the business model of
private health insurers because they are financial instruments designed to
make profits for their investors. People with health insurance will face the
same bureaucratic nightmare of our current system and out-of-pocket costs
that force them to delay or avoid health care or risk bankruptcy when they
have high health care needs.
3.CAP's plan will continue the high costs of health care. NIMA has been
proven over and over to have the best cost efficiency because it is one plan
with one set of rules. It is estimated that NIMA will save $500 billion each
year on administrative costs and over $100 billion each year on reduced
prices for pharmaceuticals. As a single purchaser of care, NIMA has powerful
leverage to lower the costs of goods and services. The CAP plan maintains
the complicated multi-payer system that we have today. At best, it will only
achieve 16% of the administrative savings of a single payer system and it
will have less power to reign in the high costs of care.
4.CAP's plan will allow private health insurers to continue to rip off the
government. NIMA is a publicly-financed program without the requirement of
creating profits for investors. With a low overhead, most of the dollars are
used to pay for health care. The CAP plan maintains the same problems that
exist with Medicare today. Private Medicare providers cherry pick the
healthiest patients and those who have or develop healthcare needs wind up
in the public Medicare plan. This places a financial burden on the public
Medicare plan, which has to pay for the most care, while private health
insurers rake in huge profits from covering the healthy with a guaranteed
payor, the government.
5.CAP's plan will continue to perpetuate health disparities. NIMA provides a
single standard of care to all people. Because all people, rich and poor
(and lawmakers), are in the same system, there are strong incentives to make
it a high quality program. CAP's plan maintains the current tiered system in
which some people have private health insurance, those with the greatest
needs have public health insurance, some people will have inadequate
coverage and others will have no coverage at all.
6.CAP's plan will continue to restrict patients' choices. NIMA creates a
nationwide network of coverage and consistent coverage from year-to-year so
that patients choose where they seek care and have the freedom to stay with
a health professional or leave if they are dissatisfied. CAP's plan
continues private health insurers and their restricted networks that dictate
where patients can seek care. Private plans change from year-to-year and
employers change the plans they offer, so patients will still face the risk
of losing access to a health professional due to changes in their plan.
7.CAP's plan does not guarantee portability. NIMA creates a health system
that covers everyone no matter where they are in the United States and its
territories. CAP's plan maintains the link between employment and health
coverage. When people who have private health insurance lose their job or
move, they risk losing their health insurance.
8.CAP's plan will perpetuate physician burn-out. NIMA creates a healthcare
system that is simple for both patients and health professionals to use.
Under the current system, which the CAP plan will perpetuate, health
professionals spend more time on paperwork than they do with patients and
physician offices spend hours fighting with health insurers for
authorization for care and for payment for their services. This is driving
high rates of physician burnout. Suicides among physicians and
physicians-in-training are higher than the general population.
The new proposal is a 'public option' wrapped in a "Medicare for All" cloak.
It is a far cry from National Improved Medicare for All. And, contrary to
what CAP and its allies will tell you, the CAP plan will delay and prevent
the achievement of NIMA.
Co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program**, Drs. Steffie
Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, explained why the public option would not
work in the last health reform effort:
"
"The 'public plan option' won't work to fix the health care system for two
reasons.
"1. It forgoes at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available
through single payer. The public plan option would do nothing to streamline
the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and
nursing homes, which would still contend with multiple payers, and hence
still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives
administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs
account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95
percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the
public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the
savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly
$400 billion annually achievable through single payer - not enough to make
reform affordable.
"2. A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the
Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level
playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully
cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending
differences to their advantage. They have progressively undermined the
public plan - which started as the single payer for seniors and has now
become a funding mechanism for HMOs - and a place to dump the unprofitably
ill. A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the
segregation of patients, with profitable ones in private plans and
unprofitable ones in the public plan."
What we must do
The movement for National Improved Medicare for All experienced tremendous
growth in the past few years. All of the flaws of the Affordable Care Act
are becoming reality as people are forced to pay high health insurance
premiums, face high out-of-pocket costs before they can receive care and
have their access to health professionals or services denied. There is a
strong demand for NIMA that has resulted in more than half of the Democrats
in the House of Representatives signing on to HR 676 and a third of the
Democratic Senators endorsing the Senate Medicare for All bill. Medicare for
All is becoming a litmus test for the 2018 elections and 2020 Democratic
presidential nomination.
Power holders are feeling threatened by support for NIMA. They are looking
for ways to throw the movement off track and allow lawmakers who don't
support NIMA to support something that sounds like NIMA. This is why they
invented "Medicare Extra for All." It is common for the opposition to adopt
our language when we have strong support.
This is the time when the movement for NIMA needs to remain focused on our
goal of NIMA, resist compromising and escalate our pressure for NIMA. We are
closer to winning, it's time to increase our efforts to pass the finish
line.
Here are our tasks:
.We need to expose the reasons for CAP's proposal. It is designed to protect
health insurance industry profits.
.We need to educate ourselves and others about the reasons why CAP's
proposal is flawed and deficient.
.We need to educate and challenge lawmakers and candidates who speak in
favor of CAP's proposal and push them to support NIMA.
.We need to be loud and vocal in our demand for nothing less than NIMA, as
described in HR 676.
.We need to make support for HR 676 a litmus test in the upcoming elections.
We need to practice "ICU" - being independent of political party on this
issue by not tying our agenda to the corporate agenda of major political
parties, being clear about what will and what will not solve our healthcare
crisis, and being uncompromising in our demand for National Improve Medicare
for All.
With a concentrated effort for NIMA, we can overcome this distraction*** and
win National Improved Medicare for All. This is the time for all supporters
of single payer health care to focus on federal lawmakers from both parties.
Movements never realize how close they are to winning and victory often
feels far away when it is actually close at hand.
The fact that the Democrats are proposing something that sounds like NIMA
means we are gaining power. Let's use it to finally solve the healthcare
crisis in the United States and join many other countries in providing
health care for everyone. NIMA is the smallest step we can take to head down
the path of saving lives and improving health in our country.
*The 'public option' dead end occurred during the health reform process of
2009-10. Faced with widespread public support for National Improved Medicare
for All, and 80% support by Democratic Party voters, the power holders had
to find a way to suppress that support. They created the idea of a 'public
option,' a public health insurance for part of the population, and convinced
progressives that this was more politically-feasible and a back door to a
single payer healthcare system. Tens of millions of dollars were donated to
create a new coalition, Health Care for America Now (similar in name to
Healthcare-Now, a national single payer organization - this was
intentional), that organized progressives to fight for this public option
and suppress single payer supporters (they were openly hostile when we
raised single payer). Many single payer supporters fell for it, and the
movement was successfully divided and weakened. Kevin Zeese and I wrote
about this in more detail in "Obamacare: The Biggest Health Insurance Scam
in History."
Here's an article well worth reading and thinking about.
Carl Jarvis
***
A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public and Prevent 'Medicare for All'
Michael Fleshman / CC 2.0
The Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington-based Democratic Party
think tank funded by Wall Street, including private health insurers and
their lobbying group, unveiled a new healthcare proposal designed to confuse
supporters of "Medicare for All" and protect private health insurance
profits. It is receiving widespread coverage in 'progressive' media outlets.
We must be aware of what is happening so that we are not fooled into another
'public option' dead end.*
The fact that CAP is using Medicare for All language is both a blessing and
a curse. It means Medicare for All is so popular that they feel a need to
co-opt it, and it means that they are trying to co-opt it, which will give
Democrats an opportunity to use it to confuse people.
This effort could be preparation for the possibility that Democrats win a
majority in Congress in 2018 or 2020. It is normal for the pendulum to swing
to the party opposite the President's party during the first term in office.
If Democrats win a majority, they will be expected to deliver on health
care, but they face a dilemma of having to please their campaign donors,
which includes the health insurance industry, or pleasing their voters,
where 75% support single payer health care.
The public is aware that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) protects the profits
of the medical-industrial complex (private health insurers, Big Pharma and
for-profit providers) and not the healthcare needs of the public. "Fixing
the ACA" is not popular. Last year during repeal attempts, people made it
clear at town halls and rallies that they want a single payer healthcare
system such as National Improved Medicare for All (NIMA). By offering a
solution that sounds good to the uninformed, "Medicare Extra for All," but
continues to benefit their Wall Street donors, Democrats hope to fool people
or buy enough support to undermine efforts for NIMA.
This is an expected development. If we look at the phases of stage six of
successful social movements by Bill Moyers (see slide 8), we see that as a
movement nears victory, the power holders appear to get in line with the
public's solution while actually attacking it. If the movement recognizes
what is happening, that this is a false solution and not what the movement
is demanding, then we have a chance to win NIMA. If the movement falls for
the false solution, it loses.
Our tasks at this moment are to understand what the power holders are
offering, recognize why it is a false solution and reject it.
"Medicare Extra for All" versus National Improved Medicare for All
The basic outline for the new proposal is that people would be able to buy a
Medicare plan, a form of 'public option,' including the Medicare Advantage
plans offered by private health insurers. People who choose to buy a
Medicare plan would pay premiums and co-pays, as they do now for private
health insurance. The new Medicare system would replace Medicaid for people
with low incomes.
Private health insurance would still exist for employers, who currently
cover the largest number of people, federal employees and the military.
While workers would have the option to buy a Medicare plan, it is unclear
how many would do so given that most employers who provide health insurance
have their own plans and that private health insurers are experts at
marketing their plans to the public.
NIMA, as embodied in HR 676: "The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All
Act," would create a single national healthcare system, paid for up front
through taxes, that covers every person from birth to death and covers all
medically-necessary care. NIMA relegates private insurance to the sidelines
where it could potentially provide supplemental coverage for those who want
extras, but it would no longer serve as a barrier for people who need care.
Here are the flaws in the CAP proposal:
1.CAP's plan will continue to leave people without health insurance.Instead
of being a universal system of national coverage like NIMA, coverage under
the CAP plan relies on people's ability to afford health insurance. Only
people with low incomes would not pay, as they do now under Medicaid. Just
as it is today, those who do not qualify as low income, but still can't
afford health insurance premiums, would be left out. Almost 30 million are
without coverage today. There is no guarantee that health insurance premiums
will be affordable.
2.CAPS's plan will continue to leave people with inadequate coverage. Under
NIMA, all people have the same comprehensive coverage without financial
barriers to care. The CAP plan allows private health insurers to do what
they do best - restrict where people can seek health care, shift the cost of
care onto patients and deny payment for care. This is the business model of
private health insurers because they are financial instruments designed to
make profits for their investors. People with health insurance will face the
same bureaucratic nightmare of our current system and out-of-pocket costs
that force them to delay or avoid health care or risk bankruptcy when they
have high health care needs.
3.CAP's plan will continue the high costs of health care. NIMA has been
proven over and over to have the best cost efficiency because it is one plan
with one set of rules. It is estimated that NIMA will save $500 billion each
year on administrative costs and over $100 billion each year on reduced
prices for pharmaceuticals. As a single purchaser of care, NIMA has powerful
leverage to lower the costs of goods and services. The CAP plan maintains
the complicated multi-payer system that we have today. At best, it will only
achieve 16% of the administrative savings of a single payer system and it
will have less power to reign in the high costs of care.
4.CAP's plan will allow private health insurers to continue to rip off the
government. NIMA is a publicly-financed program without the requirement of
creating profits for investors. With a low overhead, most of the dollars are
used to pay for health care. The CAP plan maintains the same problems that
exist with Medicare today. Private Medicare providers cherry pick the
healthiest patients and those who have or develop healthcare needs wind up
in the public Medicare plan. This places a financial burden on the public
Medicare plan, which has to pay for the most care, while private health
insurers rake in huge profits from covering the healthy with a guaranteed
payor, the government.
5.CAP's plan will continue to perpetuate health disparities. NIMA provides a
single standard of care to all people. Because all people, rich and poor
(and lawmakers), are in the same system, there are strong incentives to make
it a high quality program. CAP's plan maintains the current tiered system in
which some people have private health insurance, those with the greatest
needs have public health insurance, some people will have inadequate
coverage and others will have no coverage at all.
6.CAP's plan will continue to restrict patients' choices. NIMA creates a
nationwide network of coverage and consistent coverage from year-to-year so
that patients choose where they seek care and have the freedom to stay with
a health professional or leave if they are dissatisfied. CAP's plan
continues private health insurers and their restricted networks that dictate
where patients can seek care. Private plans change from year-to-year and
employers change the plans they offer, so patients will still face the risk
of losing access to a health professional due to changes in their plan.
7.CAP's plan does not guarantee portability. NIMA creates a health system
that covers everyone no matter where they are in the United States and its
territories. CAP's plan maintains the link between employment and health
coverage. When people who have private health insurance lose their job or
move, they risk losing their health insurance.
8.CAP's plan will perpetuate physician burn-out. NIMA creates a healthcare
system that is simple for both patients and health professionals to use.
Under the current system, which the CAP plan will perpetuate, health
professionals spend more time on paperwork than they do with patients and
physician offices spend hours fighting with health insurers for
authorization for care and for payment for their services. This is driving
high rates of physician burnout. Suicides among physicians and
physicians-in-training are higher than the general population.
The new proposal is a 'public option' wrapped in a "Medicare for All" cloak.
It is a far cry from National Improved Medicare for All. And, contrary to
what CAP and its allies will tell you, the CAP plan will delay and prevent
the achievement of NIMA.
Co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program**, Drs. Steffie
Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, explained why the public option would not
work in the last health reform effort:
"
"The 'public plan option' won't work to fix the health care system for two
reasons.
"1. It forgoes at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available
through single payer. The public plan option would do nothing to streamline
the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and
nursing homes, which would still contend with multiple payers, and hence
still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives
administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs
account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95
percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the
public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the
savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly
$400 billion annually achievable through single payer - not enough to make
reform affordable.
"2. A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the
Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level
playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully
cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending
differences to their advantage. They have progressively undermined the
public plan - which started as the single payer for seniors and has now
become a funding mechanism for HMOs - and a place to dump the unprofitably
ill. A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the
segregation of patients, with profitable ones in private plans and
unprofitable ones in the public plan."
What we must do
The movement for National Improved Medicare for All experienced tremendous
growth in the past few years. All of the flaws of the Affordable Care Act
are becoming reality as people are forced to pay high health insurance
premiums, face high out-of-pocket costs before they can receive care and
have their access to health professionals or services denied. There is a
strong demand for NIMA that has resulted in more than half of the Democrats
in the House of Representatives signing on to HR 676 and a third of the
Democratic Senators endorsing the Senate Medicare for All bill. Medicare for
All is becoming a litmus test for the 2018 elections and 2020 Democratic
presidential nomination.
Power holders are feeling threatened by support for NIMA. They are looking
for ways to throw the movement off track and allow lawmakers who don't
support NIMA to support something that sounds like NIMA. This is why they
invented "Medicare Extra for All." It is common for the opposition to adopt
our language when we have strong support.
This is the time when the movement for NIMA needs to remain focused on our
goal of NIMA, resist compromising and escalate our pressure for NIMA. We are
closer to winning, it's time to increase our efforts to pass the finish
line.
Here are our tasks:
.We need to expose the reasons for CAP's proposal. It is designed to protect
health insurance industry profits.
.We need to educate ourselves and others about the reasons why CAP's
proposal is flawed and deficient.
.We need to educate and challenge lawmakers and candidates who speak in
favor of CAP's proposal and push them to support NIMA.
.We need to be loud and vocal in our demand for nothing less than NIMA, as
described in HR 676.
.We need to make support for HR 676 a litmus test in the upcoming elections.
We need to practice "ICU" - being independent of political party on this
issue by not tying our agenda to the corporate agenda of major political
parties, being clear about what will and what will not solve our healthcare
crisis, and being uncompromising in our demand for National Improve Medicare
for All.
With a concentrated effort for NIMA, we can overcome this distraction*** and
win National Improved Medicare for All. This is the time for all supporters
of single payer health care to focus on federal lawmakers from both parties.
Movements never realize how close they are to winning and victory often
feels far away when it is actually close at hand.
The fact that the Democrats are proposing something that sounds like NIMA
means we are gaining power. Let's use it to finally solve the healthcare
crisis in the United States and join many other countries in providing
health care for everyone. NIMA is the smallest step we can take to head down
the path of saving lives and improving health in our country.
*The 'public option' dead end occurred during the health reform process of
2009-10. Faced with widespread public support for National Improved Medicare
for All, and 80% support by Democratic Party voters, the power holders had
to find a way to suppress that support. They created the idea of a 'public
option,' a public health insurance for part of the population, and convinced
progressives that this was more politically-feasible and a back door to a
single payer healthcare system. Tens of millions of dollars were donated to
create a new coalition, Health Care for America Now (similar in name to
Healthcare-Now, a national single payer organization - this was
intentional), that organized progressives to fight for this public option
and suppress single payer supporters (they were openly hostile when we
raised single payer). Many single payer supporters fell for it, and the
movement was successfully divided and weakened. Kevin Zeese and I wrote
about this in more detail in "Obamacare: The Biggest Health Insurance Scam
in History."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)