Service economy jobs at odds with cost of living in Orlando area

I wasn't actually too interested in the details of the "they." My major point was that I'm more interested in accountability as a principle than I am in any single position on any single issue.

Presumably you don't think there is zero accountability for anyone in business or politics, right? Companies do change policies from time to time based on public reaction. Executives are fired. Politicians are voted out. Laws are changed. Etc.

So presumably you are looking for more accountability. On what would you base success on that regard? How would more accountability be evidenced to you? At what point would it be sufficient?

I'm glad someone finally pointed out that the United States is NOT a democracy, for vitally important reasons. It's worth noting that the "Founding Fathers" deliberately created a governmental structure that is cumbersome, difficult, slow moving and inefficient. They divided up the power, then staggered the terms of office, then came up with weird schemes for elections which are designed to spread influence (with popular election of the President, for example, the election could be completely dominated by about six states; the electoral system requires cross-country involvement) and make it difficult for any branch of the government to have enough influence to do any real, lasting damage without an election to allow for corrections.

Like do-nothing Congresses which do nothing because that is *precisely what they were elected to do*. That's all by deliberate design. And believe it or not, that's probably why the Republic has survived for almost 227 years

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

ApolloAndy said:
Otherwise they would have put things like "The right to not be forced to pay a minimum wage" in the Bill of Rights.

Gotta admit. I laughed at this.

Here's the thing, minimum wage was 160 years and a whole different world away. Hell, for us it's half that far behind us.

If my kids live to be 90, minimum wage as a new concept will be as far removed from them as it was to the founders of this country.

I've always thought of our founding documents as rough operational guidelines that were relevant at a time when our emergency broadcast system amounted to riding a horse as far as you could and yelling all the way. There's no way that they could have forseen the complexity of the world as it is today. We need to interpret their intention and apply it as it best fits to the way things are.

If the country's founding documents are open to interpretation, historical framing and use appropriate for the current times, then pretty much everything is.

Including a minimum wage concept that's over a lifetime old that was created in very specific times under very specific circumstances.

(and for the record, I think we've already bastardized most of how they hoped we'd live - some of it necessary, some of it not)

The Founding Fathers had slaves. Does that make them racists, or unenlightened? They lived in their time, and reacted to what was going on around them. Would they still embrace slavery, because they did then? That's simply ludicrous, as is ANY interpretation of what they would do given a world they could in NO way foresee.

The times change, concepts of justice change, concepts of personal and community responsibility change. Makes zero sense to me to say "they had no minimum wage, so we shouldn't either" (not saying that's what Gonch is claiming in any way). But the point is that the documents were intentionally vague because they DID see how much science, reason, and rationality had changed the world in their own lifetimes, and had the wisdom to understand that those processes would continue and shape a new world (and a New World) that no one could have foreseen....save perhaps "The Frenchman with The Gift"...

rollergator said:

Makes zero sense to me to say "they had no minimum wage, so we shouldn't either" (not saying that's what Gonch is claiming in any way).

I don't think anybody is saying that.

But I was trying to allude to the idea that the most important documents to this country were a product of their times and if we can interpret and reappropriate the ideas within those documents, then surely everything else is game too - including a law created to establish a minimum working wage that's very much a product of its times...and whose creation will one day be as far removed from my children's lives as it was to the founding fathers' lives.

I'm not sure anyone's arguing for a literalist interpretation of minimum wage laws or a "it's the law so we should just accept it" approach either. Of course it's up for debate and of course people can and should organize collectively against it. And people should organize collectively for it. And I suppose the ultimate ideal of the founding fathers is that some compromise position which is actually closest to the interest of the "common good (perhaps, by definition here)" will come about, and will be subject to accountability from both sides.

Thought this was interesting and loosely pertained to our discussion here. Adding a talking point.

Why Many Unemployed Workers Will Never Get Jobs

Oddly enough, I agree with that article in general. However, I stand by my assertion that there are many people who are trying, who do have motivation, and who are still getting pooped on by the system.

Edit: In fact, now that I think about it, a lot of people I know personally (from trying to organize my community) fit into the category. Most of them are refugees from foreign countries who were dumped here with 6 months of help and now are stuck in a bad neighborhood, working for minimum wage, have trouble speaking the language. They are definitely hard workers, they have a lot of talents and expertise, they just aren't allowed to use those skills because of some regulation or another and they're basically funneled into nursing or janitorial work, regardless of their skills.

I think making the leaps in that opinion piece is ridiculous. There's no causation between anything he's talking about.

Many people who would be unwilling to work at minimum wage because whatever handouts are available yield them greater utility than 40 hours at $7.25 WILL be willing to work if it becomes 40 hours at $10.10. How many is "many?" We might find out. I'm sure hoping that is a LARGE number, because that will help alleviate the stress on the government's handout system.

I do think there were always, and will always be, those willing to grift...and that number may have grown as a result of the loss of "community." It's harder to be the town ne'er-do-well when everyone knows you personally...we really don't have that kind of world any more, and I do think that one of the consequences is that someone is less likely to find a job for "Jane's boy whose a little off" than they are for the stranger that lives down the block.

Now Jane's boy may cost his employer more than his "value" as an employee....but that's where you have private sources that can help out someone in less fortunate circumstances. But that also may have declined somewhat as a consequence of the loss of close-knit community. The intersection of these two is very taxing on the "welfare" systems, both private and public.

I might be rambling...but I *was* born a ramblin' man.

And why will it never be equal? I think this concept applies to a lot more than baggage claims and trees:

Think about it.

There are parts of the Huffpost article I agree with: helicopter parents, for an example. If a child grows up believing they can do no wrong, they're ill equipped to function in the "real world".

But there parts I disagree with: I'm not convinced that "we expect employers or government" to pay for health care is correct.

I don't think people "expect" employers or the government to provide health care; I think people rely on employers or the government to provide health care because employers and the government can afford the economies of scale that make health care more affordable -- America's health care system has a lot of costly inefficiencies.

But those employer/government subsidies play a significant role in increasing healthcare costs. To help with rising costs, we do something that further increases costs. Same thing happens with college costs.

I've been arguing for well over a decade that *I* am a reason HC costs are so ridiculous in this country.....well, not me per se, but the need for people like me to send medical bills around the mulberry bush in a desperate search for someone to cover costs. Once your insurance carrier denies, it becomes a real cat-and-mouse game trying to get them to pay. Failing that, it usually ends up being a government payer....requiring insurers to put a minimum percentage of revenues toward actual HC costs IS something that I think has proven promising already in terms of reducing the ridiculous denials that have little or no actual BASIS for a denial of a valid HC claim.

You treat the patient in good faith, you should get paid when you deliver a valid bill to their insurer....that has never happened, and won't miraculously be fixed by ACA....but we ARE on a better path.

^^Yes, and yes.

Sucks.

Gator, you give too much credit to people.

As a former Medicaid and foodstamp worker, I saw far more people refuse above minimum wage jobs because they could get handouts and not work and still have food, clothes, tv, Internet, cell and home phones, cars, and housing.

I had employers calling me weekly to tell me that my clients refused to work more than the max amount allowed for them to get food stamps because although they would have more money and the ability to show they're valuable and will gain skills to work higher jobs, they'd have to work more and get less benefits.

I also got complaints about my clients not accepting higher paying jobs or promotions for the same reasons.

This isn't something that was occasional. Out if a caseload of over 1000 families (in two states, three offices, and two offices being located In large metro areas), this was the norm. It's one reason I left that job.

I recently read over at Screamscape that Universal is raising wages too, but not as much.

Romney Supports Minimum Wage Increase