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

Ugh. But no surprise.

He was for automatic increases in the minimum wage tied to inflation during the 2012 election campaign, wasn't he?

No idea. That election was one of the saddest ever for the illusion of choice. I tuned it out for the most part.

Yeah, the last several presidential elections really have been the evil of two lessers.

I'm sure every election for the past couple hundred years has been like that.

Y'all act like elections give more than the illusion of real choice.

You know we don't even really pick the president, right? ;-)

Tekwardo said:

Gator, you give too much credit to people.

Probably so. But I squirm at the opposite alternative.

Can't say I'm surprised that Romney is willing to express how he really feels when he's not trying to curry favor to win an election.

I've heard speculation that he's starting to make more public appearances (and offering his opinions) possibly because he's thinking of running in 2016.

Because, dammit, this time he'll...uh...lose again.

Back on topic (somewhat): interesting read.

Note to self: Don't take financial advice from the Pope

And never take candy from a priest....

The Pope actually tweeted "Inequality is the root of all social evil"? Because stealing money from people who earn it and giving it to those who don't is somehow noble and good...

Whatever your view of the minimum wage, increasing it in a weak labor market doesn't make much sense to me (outside of politics anyway). One benefit of a minimum wage linked to inflation is that in weak/down economies, inflation will tend to be low/non-existent reducing negative pressures on the labor market (which in weak/down economies will tend to be weak as well).

Seeing the leader of richest non-profit organization in the world (one of them anyways) and one of the richest organizations in the world talk about the need to redistribute wealth is amazingly ironic to me. Its also interesting to see a lot of people in the US latch onto what he is saying with the hope that it will lead to more wealth redistribution in the US. But Francis is talking about the global economy, and on a global scale pretty much no one in the US is poor. Though I think much of what Francis has said and done since his election is political in terms of the church's position in the world's dialogue.

Seems to me there is some irony in his statement about inequality as well.

The pope, who lives free at the Vatican, and runs a religion sitting on Billions, has no room to talk about economic equality.

By that same token, that's precisely how I feel about our beloved President, who wastes hundreds of millions of our tax dollars for his vacations, fundraisers, and who knows what else, and lectures us about income inequality.

Oh I agree.

That's why I hate politicians regardless of what side of the coin.

I'm rich but you should be better at being poor!

And that's a left AND right wing attitude. Both sides just have different ways of lecturing you on how to be better at being poor.

As usual, I am late in reading this very interesting thread.

Education has been addressed a few times on both sides of this issue, but in my opinion, education has to change in order to be more effective in its mission.

Right now billions of public education dollars are being spent with the goal of creating high school graduates who are "College-ready."

That might have worked fifty years ago, but I see it as being a complete waste of time and money in 2014.

A standard Pre-K through 8th grade education should be enough to determine who really belongs on a regents track and who really would be better served in a specialized learning or trade setting.

For example, an eigth grade student might be reading on a 4th grade level but might be an incredible craftsman would best learn a trade or skill that will in the end help him or her earn more money then if these skills weren't developed. It would also cut down the cost of continuing to remediate the same child. And yes, it would increase self-esteem.

I know this is controversial, and not "pollitically correct" but we would all be better off in the long run. (And so would many of these students.) Mechanics, plumbers, electricians, (etc) make very nice saleries and they don't have to be held back due to limitations.

Some students who are lacking in academics and who need help with social skills and would benefit from courses tailored to their needs and abilities.

On the other hand, heavan forbid that you or your loved ones ever need an emergency room doctor due to, let's say a car accident. What is important is the skill of the doctors and the hospital staff. What isn't important is what grade he or she got on a social studies exam.

Lastly, I would guess that about one perent of less of Americans make their living as public authors. Yet, a big part of the curriculum is creative writing. SOmeone who fails the regents or the common core exams because of this is denying society a talented craftsman or woman. MOst people are writers - but they wrote lists, short texts, etc.

Just a few thoughts.

I've always felt that the educational system, instead of grouping children by age past a certain grade, should focus on vocation and talent.

I'm all for someone getting a basic education and focusing on a trade. I'm also for someone who is happy continuing on to college.

To be fair to this Pope, he is taking steps. Small steps. Very tiny steps, even. But he has foregone the traditional papal apartment, drives himself around in a couple of old cars instead of being driven around in a limo, eats in the cafeteria and so on.

He himself is extremely humble, and even got rid of the "bishop of bling" as an example to those who lived lives of luxury on the church's dime. I don't necessarily agree with the Church holding the amount of wealth it does - but I strongly believe this Pope is no hypocrite.

Vater said:

By that same token, that's precisely how I feel about our beloved President, who wastes hundreds of millions of our tax dollars for his vacations, fundraisers, and who knows what else, and lectures us about income inequality.

To me this is one of those irrelevant straw man arguments about any sitting president. Seriously, the guy (or woman, at some point) can't exactly go down to the local Sonic for a milkshake any time he wants. And relative to the federal budget at large, the expense of protecting the sitting president is a rounding error. Surely one could make a more relevant argument about his or her actual policy.

(For the record, I think Obama is a do-nothing president, but there's plenty of room to criticize him on actual policy.)