What does that rant have to do with the quote you replied to?

Guilty. I admit to trolling. But I understand the situation better than you guys do. The left is so blinded by there need to win, they dont see what is really happening in this country.

You guys are so delusional, its funny is a sad sort of way.

The Dems are at fault for Kavanaugh being confirmed, not Trump.

But you dont see this. Wake up. Please. Please wake up. You are ruining this country along with corporations. Which the right supports. But you are so concerned about the stupid shit, you dont see how the country (i.e. the middle class, rural voters) feel, you can never win again. Unless you throw a young charismatic candidate. But you had to have the next in line.

Moderation is key. Not believing every accusation against "The Man". That is a sure losing formula.

Everything

Yeah you're going to have to explain this to me with your obviously superior understanding. How are Dems responsible for a candidate that Trump nominated and passed with Democrats voting 48-1 against?.

So why have Democrats gotten more votes in the aggregate? They've won the popular vote total in 5 of the past 6 presidential elections.

Because of the empty promises they make to the low socioeconomic population that resides in the major metropolitan areas. You know, the ones they lie to for their votes.

Yet because of the system the gop seems to win. And that is because of the vast areas of rural areas that vote republican because they want freedom and the right to create their own success and not depend on the government to support them.

Yeah, rural areas hate depending on government

Trump to offer farmers $12B in trade aid - POLITICO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.59b36b1f2c78

It is one person one vote, not one acre one vote.

Obviously, you dont get the whole electoral college thing.

Also, because of your failed politics we now will have a heavily conservative SC. Way to go. How does that feel. You guys are so blind to shooting yourself in the foot that you keep doing it.

Well done. Freedom keeps taking a hit because of your ignorance.

And the senate majority and the congressional majority. You cant win just the cities and hope to run the country.

Wake up.

Your haughtiness doesn't play into it at all? You are clearly above it all because you voted for Johnson, right?

Been out west lately? Or in any rural area? Sure there are people that suck the teet of the government, but they still dont vote democrat.

But you keep on believing what the media puts out there. Maybe try visiting an area once and looking around.

Usually in a democracy, the side the gets the most votes at all levels is not the minority party. The way that the gerrymandering packed all those votes into the cities plays a large part too.

A minority of voters elected the President. Representatives of a minority of voters control the Senate and the House. That's a fact.

Your solution is for Dems, who only think about winning, to win more. Is this a Zen puzzle?

p.s.- Bernie lost in most of the primaries. He was most successful in caucuses that attract far fewer voters than do primaries. It wasn't rigged, he just didn't appeal to much of the party beyond educated whites.

Above what? The stupidity that is the democrat party? Or the republican party? Shoot they are the same as far as Im concerned.

But this is a heavily leaning left board. Im pointing out why you lose. Im not syain the gop is better, but you guys bitch about that party incessantly. Figure out why you lose and fix it.

But you guys are so blind to what is really happening out there. Trump went to the everyman. And that was the middle class.

And by the way, the middle class makes for a strong democracy, not the poor. And the poor is who the dems are catering to. Making false promises which they dont keep.

Until the democratic party figures this out and keeps going more and more left, they will struggle to win.

Shoot, you are going to lose a long standing dem in McCaskill. To a corrupt, lying gop member.

Fix your party. Then fix the country.

Again what is your point? You just seem to affirm that rural people are happy to suck on the government teet.

No doubt. That hurt the dems. The metro areas will vote em mostly. But that doesnt help in an electoral college system

But that is where the majority of middle class live as well. The people that suck off the government teet is a minority in the rural areas. Mostly, it is freedom loving moddle class people. That dont want the government interfering with there lives.

That isnt the case in the cities, they depend ont he government to fix their problems.

And the governemtn does a poor job of that.

Most middle class people live in metro areas.

In 2016 the median individual income was just over 33,000. Dems won the 30000-49,999 demographic by nine points. Trump did outperform Romney in that demo, but Clinton still won by nine points.

While Clinton won the under 30000 demo by 12 points, it also represented the biggest change from 2012 with Trump coming in 16 points higher than Romney.

Politics aside, I’ve always hated the “didn’t win the popular vote” argument regarding presidential elections. Popular vote isn’t the way it’s decided, and if it was, both campaigns and individual voters would behave differently.

I agree campaigns would behave differently, but how would individual voters behave differently?

I think it is important to point out the popular totals because politicians always claim that the voters gave them a mandate to implement their policies. It's turns into an absurd argument when more people voted against you than for you.

There is a higher percentage of the population receiving government assistance in rural areas than there is in suburbs/urban area.

https://www.cfra.org/news/140730/sna...ral-households

Yes, you are probably correct. But the cities is where the dems rely on their votes.
Most middle class will vote gop. And when a candidate shows up and proclaims he is for them, they vote.

Regardless, the dems are not trying to win the people that will get them elected. As the latest results have clearly shown.

But keep up with you rhetoric and see the results. You are quickly becoming a minority.

A GOP voter in California or a Dem in Texas may skip voting in the current system since they think their vote won’t matter. Or they may vote for a third party candidate.

Well, I like to think that I *have* woken up. The side currently "winning" used to get my vote. Until I realized that they don't care about the middle class, and they damn sure don't care about the poor. They care about extracting as much out of them as they possibly can, while feeding their xenophobic and misogynistic tendencies.

The Republicans, imo, are about making things better for the chosen at the expense of everyone else. The leadership, anyway. Everyone else is content to be the preferred of the have-nots.

are you angry? You seem angry. You also seem drunk.

You’ve been a pretty good punching bag for us losers to focus our anger and frustrations on, and I appreciate that. But now with this anger, it’s no fun watching your team make us angry and watching them make you angry too.

Jon is admittedly rotten on the inside. He has admitted he is not happy and dreads living, thus his politics makes sense.

What’s going on with you? You come come across as a victim or profoundly insecure.

I agree. Trump is absolutely going to pander to the rich. But in doing so, he is helping them create jobs.

is it the best way? i dont know.

Im tired of corporations running the country. Im tired of career politicians. Im tire of politicians lying to a disenfranchised people to garner their votes.

Here is the deal, I feel like I see the problems of both sides while this board swallows what the ledt is saying hook, line and sinker. And feel holier than thou because they feel like they are helping them.

This country is screwed. We are going downhill quickly and we are bitching about things that dont matter in the broad sense of being the greatest country on the planet Earth.

We are Rome. Rome fell when their were too many slaves to support. We are enslving too many people and are running out of money and jobs to support them.

When the everyman has no chance to succeed because of regulations and entitlements, we, as a society, are screwed.

Unfortunately, this board is more concerned about the individual instead of the whole.

You guys were more concerned about the sexual assault BS and totally missed the real problem of the dark money. That is a lost cause in todays society. Too many people dont care about a guy who grabbed someones pussy unless you are a dem and then it becomes THE cause. But most people dont care. And it is showing in the results.

In fairness, they are the majority. Just that we elect our President in an undemocratic way. And our Senate doesn't provide equal representation.

Not angry. But frustrated. And a little buzzed.

Im not a victim. Far from it. But Im tired of the system. I hate career politicians. I sit here watching ads for and against McCaskill and Hawley, one of the more important races this next cycle. I have no desire to vote for either.
In fact, Im trying to talk myself into voting for McCaskill based on her going after big pharma. But will she really? And Hawley is a plain liar.

Who do I vote for? 3rd party. But is that really a great idea? I mean, its kind of a waster vote when only 3% of us do it. And only because people are so tied to "their" party they lose the fact that these people are the problem.

What can I do?

This is wrong. Rural states are the biggest leeches on our federal government. For instance, you live in a welfare state that my tax dollars support.



As for cities vs rural. In almost every scenario, the city provides the revenue to support the rural parts of the state. For example, Cook County (which is primarily Chicago) pays $2 billion more into the state than it receives in return.

https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/vie...ext=ppi_papers

Absolutely. I am in favor of a multi party system based on a simple majority of voters.

This will never happen because our system is rigged.

I am a liberal when it comes to health care. But conservative when it comes to other social issues.

I struggle with abortion because I believe in a womans right to choose what to do with her body, but what about the unborn fetus, which I believe is alive when the heart starts beating.

I want freedom. I dont want a big government. I think our society will be made up of people who work for the government or depend wholly on the government to support them, you know like the book 1984.

I remember a similar case where a UConn student masturbated on his roommate's passed out girlfriend, but wasn't even required to register as a sex offender because he never touched her & the law required contact (which was obviously changed after). It's pretty brutal it takes outrageous cases like this to update laws, but I certainly can't blame the people who wrote the laws long ago for not anticipating that
He saw how much adulation he got for his anger at Kavanaugh's initial hearing & decided to make a play for that 39%(?) who elected Trump?

Idk, I work in South Charlotte at a couple of the fancy country clubs. Bartended at events hosted by Congressman Pittenger & whatever the NC rep's name is, and the level of dissonance between that & this thread is palpable. I have to force myself to bite my tongue, because the things people say are to the right of Tarcone and everyone agrees with them!

Rainmaker, I didnt want to quote your post because of the size.

What percentage of that is farm subsidies?

As for Cook county and Illinois, that is the worst example you could bring up. That state is so corrupt and out of control. Its in debt and the infrastructure is a mess. Most down state people hate cook county and would be happy to split into 2 states.

Illinois is the best example of what is wrong with government today.

This is completely wrong.

I don't know. I know farmers like to pretend their "subsidy" isn't welfare, but it is.


Down state is broke and couldn't make it without Cook County. They can cry all they want about the big city, but Chicago pays it's bills.

Illinois is a mess but would be better if we didn't have to subsidize states like yours.

How do you square these two things?

Probably. It is automation that will be the down fall. When we lose those important jobs factories and service, we create a large population of unhirable people that the government has to support, which it cannot do.

We becomes a nation of unemployed people relying on the government.

The irony of that is the the big corporations want little government so they can do what they want, but the unemployed are more likely to vote for dems who want big government that regulate the corporations.

We are screwed.

Shoot, we have 2 major cities in our state. And a balanced budget amendment in the state constitution. We are a lot better off than Illinois. A large chunk of western Illinois people work in MO.

We have our own problems, but Chicago isnt paying for them

I cant. That is my problem. What can I do? I want a little government. But I want free healthcare.

I believe that the insurance, pharma and healthcare industries are out of control. I feel that they can do whatever they want and the government lets the,

But I feel the government already meddles too much in out lives.

It is a tough situation. And I am frustrated by it.

Honestly, what’s bothering you? You say we are Rome, country is going down hill, you are not hopeful, etc. is there a particular injustice you are experiencing? I’m asking because that seems a way to get active, to find someone who supports ending your suffering.

You have rage towards one side, are their policies personally hurting you?

My hope is this is not just in the abstract. There’s no real harm being done to you, but it’s the fact you (your team) is being called names that is the true source of the rage. (If it a specific thing that is personally harming you, you’ve done a poor job of expressing it, but more power to you- rage against the dying of the light).

It is easier to balance your budget when you area leaching money off states like mine. Your state receives much more from the federal government than it pays in. Mine receives much less.

You hate welfare but live in a welfare state. Perhaps you should be demanding your politicians give back some of that federal money and return them to states like mine.

There is nothing specific harming me. Im as middle class as you can get. Maybe its the fact that I feel the middle class is getting shit on.

As an example, my daughter is going to college, we make too much for her to get grants, but not enough to just pay for her college. Yes, we are debt ridden because that is what the USA is about. Borrow now and pay later. And we fell into that trap. My wife and I are poor savers, like many in this country.
So, we are too rich for free college money, but to poor to pay the high price of college. So I feel squeezed by that. Why is the middle class the whipping boy? We are the backbone of the country but are left out and shit upon.

The left only cares about the poor. The right only cares about the rich.

Who do i have fighting for me? It used to be the elected officials. The pharmacist who ran for office. The farmer or the local business owner. Not the really rich that can afford it now. The career politician.

The system is wrong. It needs to be fixed. But the dems and the gop own the system and dont want it fixed. And this board seems to buy into the system.

I guess I want a revolution.

Agreed. Im a big state guy. I think the feds should protect us. Not control us.

Interesting map. Is % of State General Revenue actually a good metric? I suspect its a combination coming at different angles to get a fair view.

How about per capita or total $.

Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia

If someone has more time than me, put the grids in xls and sort/total by red vs blue vs tossup states and it should give us additional data points. This would be a pretty interesting analysis.

.

You keep referring to rural vs urban. The "freedom loving rural middle class" that us liberals can't relate to because we only pander to the inner city poor.

Rural families rely more on food stamps than those in large cities, study shows - NY Daily News











Now when MOST people talk about rural vs urban, "freedom loving midwesterners" vs "urban teat suckling" they're really talking about white vs black.


Americans Are Mistaken About Who Gets Welfare | HuffPost




There is a SEVERE overestimation in this country about how many black people are on many of these social programs compared to white people.

The reality?



The white working class, the rural white working class, the midwestern white working class, benefits HEAVILY from the exact same programs.


And that's great. These programs are there for a reason, people that need them, white. black, hispanic, should all reach out for this assistance that we all pay for in our taxes every day.

I just want to make sure that we are all operating on the same set of facts when we have these conversations. Your opinions that women shouldn't be trusted, that straight white men are all of a sudden a victim class in this country, and that "rural" poor are different from "urban" poor (its ok, we know what that really means, you don't have to say it) are your own. But lets make sure we start from the same factual basis when we start to look at how others form their opinions.

I understand this and agree up to a point.

However, this very far from your usual one side is all evil rhetoric. Personally, I 5ink the rich and powerful make the rules to stay rich and powerful. Both sides fall for demagogues that promise they will be different, and of course they never are.

One of my biggest frustrations of the right is the map Rainmaker posted. Over and over again politicians get voted in by exploiting their constituents-knowing they will be bailed out by the fed. Change what you will, but state conservative legislation only works if there are liberal places to subsidize them (military, farm subsidies, Medicare, disability, education, etc). How the right has been able to expect and get and handout while at the same time demonizing the left is brilliant.

I'm totally confused about what is true re: China's hardware hack and it'll gradually play out over the next several week.

I am sure the US does something similar (but I choose to believe we are the good guys). Its coming at a good time for Trump with his trade war with China so it'll only help him try to isolate/confuse/piss-off China.

https://www.thestreet.com/markets/am...-hack-14733776

I'll just point out that this statement is partly false. 2016 popular vote for the House of Representatives: 50.6% GOP, 49.4% Democrat, 1.5 million vote difference in total. Gerrymandering is a problem, Trump won with less votes than Clinton, etc., but a minority of voters does not control Congress, and historically winning the presidency without winning the popular vote is very rare. It's becoming more common, but still rare. We're nowhere near an apartheid system.

I've been assigned to 2 presidential escort details. Obama didn't even offer so much as a wave to the police that got him to the airport safely. Trump stopped and shook the hand of every officer that got him to the airport.

Whether or not you want to appreciate the time, effort, and disruption to the lives of everyone involved (because days off being cancelled at the last minute is just wonderful) to get a president safely from 1 point to the next, it says a lot when someone can at least shake your hand and say thank you.

Then there's the skipping police week so you could invite a rapper who chose to write a song commemorating a convicted cop killer to the White House during you know....the week remembering officers killed in the line of duty. Or sending representatives to a funeral of someone who chose to assault and attempt to disarm a police officer. Or calling police officers racist during a memorial service for police officers.

So yeah, I can say with confidence that law enforcement officers didn't feel the greatest confidence in their president in that time period.

So essentially, Obama doesn't pay police enough respect. I can appreciate that on some level. On another, I think "Is that what you got in this for? For the president to pat you on the head and say 'good boy!'?"

I get the waving. That's an easy to do, and seems like common courtesy. I would ask if shaking the hands of every officer in every escort is standard protocol though, or even an efficient use of time. I'd imagine presidents ride in a LOT of motorcades. I do see how the gesture would go a long way towards ingratiating yourself to someone (aside: my FIL has a picture of Reagan shaking his hand, when he was pulling duty I *think* as the pilot for the presidential press core, and it is a very cool thing to see in someone's home office). Is not doing it necessarily a slight? What was Bush protocol?

I can empathize on having to pull overtime or rearrange vacation schedules. But...I don't know that I'd lay that at the president's feet? It's not as if he checks the Outlook calendar and says "oh, you know what? illinifan has off that day - cancel the ride down to _____." Also, that's not just you who has to do those things. Many, probably too many, American workers have to put up with that stuff. It's not unique to police. A lot of positions are overworked and understaffed. With the new SC, we should probably prepare for more of that sort of thing.

Ok, this: "so you could invite a rapper who chose to write a song commemorating a convicted cop killer." I had to look this up, as I wasn't familiar with it (in full disclosure...I was only tangentially aware of "Police Week," and that is largely because of the complaint when Obama didn't attend it). Common IS a rapper. Though his own site describes him as "an American hip hop recording artist, actor, film producer and poet." But "rapper" - that carries a certain connotation, doesn't it? It's one thing if the president hosts an actor, or a poet, or a film producer. But a rapper. That in an of itself is bad, isn't it? As for the song - I can appreciate not being thrilled about a song which lionizes someone convicted of aiding and abetting the murder of a state trooper. I think the point of the song is to speak to a perceived injustice - that she was wrongfully convicted (per wiki, medical forensics backed her assertion that she was shot while holding her hands up, and there was no gun residue on her hands). We'll never know what really happened that night - police word against that of BLA members. But Common had his doubts - and given today's cilmate, body cam evidence, etc - can you blame him? I'm sorry, but the word of police isn't unassailable.

But yes, I get why this would be a sore point. I'm from Philly - there are still plenty of bad feelings regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Daniel Faulkner killing. I'd imagine police would be pretty pissed if Rage Against the Machine were invited to the White House.

Could Obama have picked a better week for this? Certainly.

Regarding Obama "calling police officers racist" - I'l appreciate help with this reference, and maybe a quote. I know he wasn't happy about the Henry Louis Gates arrest, but don't know if he ever used the term "racist" ("stupid" I think I've seen referenced). Was it something he said in Dallas?

That's how a democracy works, but we've been using the term incorrectly for as long as our country has existed. We are not a direct democracy and havent been ever.

Of course not, but people notice things. And when someone does something while another does not, it paints the picture.


No idea, I can only compare Obama and Trump.




Huh?


Exactly.


During the memorial service for the Dallas officers killed.

Thanks for the quote. I interpret these words different from what you do. I hear him saying that we all have racial biases, and that we all have to be aware of them and fight against them. That includes police. Perhaps more importantly than most, given the power that they have.

And if there's a group that claims they are being affected by these biases, it is important to listen to them

I can appreciate the statement. I have a problem with choosing a memorial service for murdered police officers as the place and time to make the statement.

Understood.

In that same service he said this:


Shouldn't we look at the totality of his remarks and not just those that you most disagree with?

or this:

Well Hillary Clinton was proposing "free" college to help people like you, not to mention expanded healthcare which you seem to support.

But you were the cool kid and voted for Gary Johnson. I mean he offered...what exactly?

Pot.

This really isn't accurate. Expanded healthcare, free college, and a $15 minimum wage are boosts to the middle class. The $15 minimum wage thing is misrepresented as helping the poor, but the ultimate goal is to boost middle class wages which have stagnated in recent years and are actually dropping under the current administration (in relation to inflation).

The right will tell you that helping the rich means the middle class will eventually get help in the form of better wages, benefits, ect but trickle down economics is incredibly flawed from a very basic economic standpoint. It never happens that way.

I completely understand that neither party offers the best of everything or even most things to very many people right now, but if finances are your (and I mean collective your not you specifically) primary factor when voting then I don't understand how any middle class or poor person could vote GOP.

People hear what they want to hear.

No? There's no reason to make that statement at the memorial service for murdered police officers.

Guess so.

dola

Happy 17th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan!

My dad is a retired pastor. For my whole life, there was a bright line in my family between duty to God and duty to country. I mean, you were supposed to do both, but the order of priority was clear.

And today on FB, he posts: "As for me and my house, we will Salute the Flag, Stand for the National Anthem, Kneel before the Cross, and Serve the Lord."

I knew my parents were conservative. I knew that their politics are, in essence, abortion uber alles.

But this shit...this shit I just do not understand. I'm going to have to put it right up there with the weekend my dad spent in tears and prayer because I'd started listening to the 77's and Undercover and I was inviting the devil's music to infiltrate our house.

:bowdown:

Haley is out.

We won't see anyone like her come our way for another 74 years...

Dola...



The beginning of Haley 2020, or some scandal? Seems like an odd timing.

She might think she wants to run in 2020, but people will not forget how she became yet another adoring puppet of Trump after he won. Or at least I hope they do.


There's been a little talk about the ethical use of private planes, but I doubt that would get her to resign.

Is Trump just hyping a resignation or is Haley getting a different job?

I'm sure reporters everywhere are looking for leaks of the real reason.

Crazy speculation from the right-Graham will replace Sessions as Attorney General and Haley will replace Graham.

Surely it won't take 74 more years for the Republicans to put a woman of color in any kind of leadership situation.

Just a Halley's comet joke.;)

Maybe it is as simple as she wants out before Trump kills her future.

That's what I mean by timing. If that were the case, then why now? Why not before she sat in on that round table of praise? Why not right after he did something especially egregious? And if she doesn't want to be tethered to Trump, why say she's going to campaign for him?

Tom Nichols speculated that now is a good time because it can't be tied to anything. She isn't making any statement by leaving at this time. Maybe.

There is an ethics investigation, so maybe she's bailing before that finds something damaging. Who knows?

I really don't think it's uncommon for a person in her position to leave after a couple years. Especially if she has designs on something in 2020.

This goes along with my line of thinking. Supposedly the Mueller investigation is winding down and I believe she'll want to bail before it ends. Right now she's leaving on her terms.

An admin official leaving the admin and then primarying the President would be very unusual.

And I can't see that happening. She might run if Trump doesn't, but challenging Trump is a sure way to end your career in this GOP.

I don't think a Presidential run in 2020 would be in her plan. I'd say she's more likely to make a Congressional run, then try for Presidency in 2024.

She'll definitely be back at some point. I think she wants to be able to say she was pro-Trump, but also be able to say she wasn't really if the shit really hits the fan. She certainly doesn't want to have to answer any questions after the Mueller report drops.

That's my guess. Also maybe she got the heads up that Graham isn't going to run again in 2020 and figures the Senate seat is hers which she can parlay into a run for President in 2024.

Yes I assume she's still quote popular in South Carolina, and UN ambassador has always been a transient position. Clinton had 3, Bush 4, Obama 2, overall it's 26 in 56 years since the only one who served more than 4 years (Henry Cabot Lodge). There's also even the rumors of Graham taking over as AG for Sessions, in which case I assume the acting Governor would happily appoint Haley if she wants it, so she doesn't run against him & beat him again.

If she was resigning effective immediately I'd be more apt to believe there's smoke, but doing it after midterms makes sense for someone with higher ambitions.

Amazon raises minimum wage to $15/hr... and people complain? Guess you can't win. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/t...pay-raise.html

I'd love to see the breakdown on how many part time & seasonal workers benefit from these changes vs how many multi year workers are actually seeing a decrease in pay.

Rand Paul on political climate: 'I really worry that someone is going to be killed' | TheHill

Is Rand Paul going soft/liberal?

Soft in the head, maybe. Heather Heyer's mother is probably not impressed

I haven't seen Bloomberg in top 10 lists. All things held equal (hard to define of course), I prefer a successful business person over a professional politician and/or actor/actress.

It doesn't seem the broad Dem base would support him but just another contender to watch out for in the future.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/mike...president.html

If that fucker runs as an independent and helps re-elect Trump...

Well it was the next business day after Kavanaugh was approved. I know a lot of Republican women have rallied to his defense, but not all of them have. And since then Trump has made some pretty silly statements about Dr. Ford. In addition to all the other speculation it may have been the thing that made her go, you know I don't want to be tied to this stuff going forward.

You did read why, right?


I'd be pissed too if I was losing out on more lucrative stock grants and bonuses for a higher monthly pay just to make a few Senators happy.

A "bad" company would just stop paying out the bonuses and stock without giving a corresponding pay raise to even approach balancing it out.

The Amazon thing is going to really impact the lower-paid workers without those benefits. It's shaping up to be a big game changer at the Whole Foods where my girlfriend is a manager. It will be a lot easier to recruit and retain good employees, particularly in a geographic area where lots of service industry workers make at or close to minimum wage (though Whole Foods has always paid decently relative to similar employment). Of course there will be some wrinkles - people who took years to get to $15 and beyond are now basically in the same place they would be if they just showed up relative to others, and the overall compensation for the higher-paid workers will decrease both relative to others, and in some cases from where they were before. But this is what a lot of people want - the emphasis is on the lowest-paid workers and giving them a living wage. I was just in Boston and the Marriott strikers were very visible "One job should be enough." The lowest paid people getting more doesn't mean that everyone else will be bumped up too, it's going to mean the opposite in some cases, and certainly the lower-middle salary people are going to make much less relative to others if we have a bigger glut of employees all around that $15 mark that has become the rallying point.

I wonder if there will be a trend of low managers/salary folks actually asking to take a demotion /step back. If the pay is close enough id take less stress and responsibility every day.

I could see that happening at Whole Foods. Manager (or "Team Leader" as they call it there), is a very stressful job and there's high turnover. The pay is good by grocery store standards but not so high above $15 that it's worth it for everyone. I know people at Whole Foods can tend to shift around the store or even move to different stores in different geographic areas - when you find the right fit they're a great employer, but it's not always easy to find that fit.

There are going to be several unintended consequences. The big concern is inflation, it is basic economics, more dollars seeking the same amount of goods. Another concern, many workers who this would affect, are already seeing jobs threatened. McDonalds has more and more self serve kiosks at their stores. I greatly prefer ordering through the kiosk rather than wondering if the cashier is getting my order right. I can easily see more fast food joints going this route.

The best way to address pay is arm yourself with a skill set that makes you valuable to employers. The other side of the equation, HR departments need to quit setting ridiculous bars for positions. There are jobs that I held 10 years ago and was a top performer that I would not be considered for now due to my degree (sales vs engineering). This needs to stop as it hurts both the employer and the employee. The employer since they are not looking at all viable candidates and the employee because they are not being given a fair shake. But, if you have a skill set that is difficult to replace, employers will pay you more. I know plenty of people, even at big companies, that had positions created for them so they could work outside a normal pay structure to keep a valued individual.

That's fairly common in the grocery business, from what I observed from my wife and I having worked at grocery stores for about 10 years through high school and college/law school. Store managers would get moved around fairly often, while others in management would do months-long shifts in produce or bakery or customer service/front-end, or even night shift/stocking. Store managers moving around kinda reminded me of how churches would rotate pastors every few years, out of the blue.

My wife and I were just talking about this.

She is VP/ GM of sales for a Warren Buffet owned company. Her feeling is within 5-10 years the value of a college degree is going to be considerably lower.

That's what should happen, and then companies will have to offer higher wages/benefits to recruit managers. That's how raising wages at the bottom can lift those above them.