Wealthy Republican Ron Unz (connected to the growing neoreactionary movement) backs an increase in t
24 replies, posted
[img]http://64.13.149.200/pximg/5FQU3NAKE070LKNU-cp0x24x1280x744-rszw640.jpg[/img]
[i]Ron Unz led a successful effort in the late 1990s to end California's bilingual education system[/i]
[quote]Ron Unz, former California gubernatorial candidate and prolific writer on what could be dubbed the "alternative right," is backing the idea of a minimum wage boost, reports Politico. The millionaire Republican and Silicon Valley luminary is profiled by the site in a lengthy piece detailing his "against-the-grain" political moves over the years.
In the case of the minimum wage, Unz backs an increase to at least $12/hour in his home state of California because he believes it would discourage reliance on state aid. If take-home pay is boosted, the logic goes, food stamps and other forms of welfare may no longer be necessary. Pushing back against those who don't grasp this point, Unz has blasted the economic libertarianism he sees at work in so-called "Conservatism Inc."
"Once we move beyond those Republican apparatchiks who are endlessly wined-and-dined by business lobbyists...the ideological landscape changes quite drastically, along with attitudes towards the minimum wage," Unz wrote recently, in a piece detailing the change in zeitgeist he sees in the online conservative community (recently described as [url=http://takimag.com/article/overreacting_to_neoreaction_nicholas_james_pell/print#axzz2sCyRtKkh/]neoreactionary[/url]) in defense of raising the minimum wage.
Other rationales for a minimum wage hike offered by Unz and pals likely wouldn't sit well with progressives. It's thought for instance that by raising the MW, immigration will be discouraged. As the Politico piece notes, Unz "believes higher wages would make jobs more attractive to U.S. residents, curtailing a lure for illegal immigration."[/quote]
[url]http://politix.topix.com/news/9814-a-fabulously-wealthy-conservative-is-actually-backing-a-minimum-wage-hike[/url]
This is indeed a surprising turnaround, and while I disagree with neoreactionaries in general, they are interesting to observe from a distance, and an idea like this isn't one of their bad ones.
[QUOTE]It's thought for instance that by raising the MW, immigration will be discouraged. [/QUOTE]
Brilliant way to win the Republican base on this issue.
this neoreactionary movement seems interesting, at least worth keeping tabs on. Dark Enlightenment seems cool and all but it also seems like a lot of D20 nerds got together and voted on the naming.
cost of living increase would follow pretty closely on the rise of any minimum wage change
but it's been out of balance for years, so maybe a sharp shock increase would help for a while
[QUOTE=TheKingofBees;43764870]Dark Enlightenment seems cool and all but it also seems like a lot of D20 nerds got together and voted on the naming.[/QUOTE]wonder if they chose that name with the specific intention of fucking with conspiracy nutters
His arguments don't really make sense from that snippet of the article.
Raise minimum wage therefore people are less reliant on the state? But cost of living will increase because of this. Things will end up back at square one.
Raise minimum wage to get rid of illegal immigrants? Wouldn't that mean more illegals would want to come cause it's more money?(assuming there is even a causation between the two) I know often illegals get paid under the table but it's not always the case.
[QUOTE=Aman;43765013]Raise minimum wage therefore people are less reliant on the state? But cost of living will increase because of this. Things will end up back at square one.[/QUOTE]
raising minimum wage doesnt increase cost of living because cost of living is not 100% dependent on the wages of unskilled labor
the cost of products and materials that are imported from other countries or gained from work that doesnt involve minimum wage workers will remain the same regardless of the minimum wage; raising minimum wage would not increase the price of wheat or bread, and any increase to the price of bread would be reactionary and based on the increase in payment to employees from a retail/grocery perspective, (or from a factory perspective, though the number of industry-based jobs in the US still paying minimum wage is negligible) but this isnt necessarily always the case and the increase in minimum wage is not a linear function with cost of living
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43765310]raising minimum wage doesnt increase cost of living because cost of living is not 100% dependent on the wages of unskilled labor
the cost of products and materials that are imported from other countries or gained from work that doesnt involve minimum wage workers will remain the same regardless of the minimum wage; raising minimum wage would not increase the price of wheat or bread, and any increase to the price of bread would be reactionary and based on the increase in payment to employees from a retail/grocery perspective, (or from a factory perspective, though the number of industry-based jobs in the US still paying minimum wage is negligible) but this isnt necessarily always the case and the increase in minimum wage is not a linear function with cost of living[/QUOTE]
Its likely the cost of goods and services offered by employers who involve minimum wage employees will go up some, but not to the level that people assume and not for everything. There are countries out there with minimum wages DOUBLE ours but their cost of living is magically double (its higher, but largely more to do with location than anything).
People said the SAME EXACT SHIT when the minimum wage went from $5/hr to $7.25/hr a few years ago. Guess what? None of that doom and gloom really happened. The reality of the situation is that the minimum wage is woefully behind inflation more than ever before. And in certain states, is WAY WAY behind the cost of living (like California). The only reason it is like this, is because corporate lobbyists have been keeping the issue of minimum wage off the radar for so long they can truly nickle and dime employees for higher bottom lines than ever before. Its creating a culture where we are supposed to be satisfied with being able to just barely get by if nothing wrong happens in your life (and fuck life savings), and a culture that relies on expensive government programs like welfare.
It's sad. I wouldn't mind my dollar menu item being $1.50 for the chance to make $10/hr and actually afford enough money to spend it back into the economy, which makes more money in the end for everyone. The current minimum wage disaster is proof that "trickle down economics" doesn't work at all - you give all the benefits, tax cuts, and bailouts to the "job providers" and it doesn't trickle down into the employee making them earn more and stronger - it just makes the corporation bloated and full of greed. What does work is businesses doing what the function of a business is designed to in the first place - serve the consumer. Thats the only way to a strong economy, because the people with the real power in a capitalist system are the consumers. Problem is, making your largest consumer base earn jack shit means they have very little purchasing power, which generally means competition dries up as the economy sucks and the money that is being made/spent just stays floating up at the top.
When you have a large population of people working full time and still dependent on government aid you have a serious problem.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;43764901]cost of living increase would follow pretty closely on the rise of any minimum wage change
but it's been out of balance for years, so maybe a sharp shock increase would help for a while[/QUOTE]
People always say this, but the fact is that the cost of living has been increasing for years, and minimum wage hasn't increased at all to keep up. It's worth less now than at any point since its inception.
If the cost of living goes up to match the already undervalued minimum wage, then our economy probably isn't sustainable in the first place, and would be destine to collapse once the foundation (many of whom work for minimum wage) is eroded to the point where the former middle-class workers can't afford the cost of living on their salaries.
I believe that cost of living rises dis-proportionally to the minimum wage because shareholders are unwilling to have anything but an increase in profits every time no matter what the cost.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43765527]When you have a large population of people working full time and still dependent on government aid you have a serious problem.[/QUOTE]
Obviously the answer is to cut funding to government aid
[QUOTE=Aman;43765013]His arguments don't really make sense from that snippet of the article.
Raise minimum wage therefore people are less reliant on the state? But cost of living will increase because of this. Things will end up back at square one.
[/QUOTE]
Why do people always say this? The cost of living is going up already, it has been for decades. Raising the minimum wage is to adjust for inflation that's already happened, it isn't going to raise the cost of living all on it's own.
[QUOTE=TheKingofBees;43764870]this neoreactionary movement seems interesting, at least worth keeping tabs on. Dark Enlightenment seems cool and all but it also seems like a lot of D20 nerds got together and voted on the naming.[/QUOTE]
I've read about those fucks. To put it simply, Dain was a representative example.
You are allowed to panic at the prospect of them getting power now.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;43764904]wonder if they chose that name with the specific intention of fucking with conspiracy nutters[/QUOTE]
A conspiracy to screw with conspiracy nuts. I like it.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;43766452]I've read about those fucks. To put it simply, Dain was a representative example.
You are allowed to panic at the prospect of them getting power now.[/QUOTE]
The most disturbing thing about the movement is that it's got a particular intelligence behind it. The people involved in it tend to be well-read, articulate, and fairly intelligent. What terrifies me is how honest and cold in putting forward their views they are. They openly state their views with little regard for how creepy or scary some of them sound.
Like the Communists and Fascists who took power in many countries around the world, they fail to realize that their views for the radical and rapid reorganization of the society they come into control of will fall flat on its face and cause a great deal of misery. Untruths and force will be required to maintain these dictatorships, which will die from swallowing their own lies and being unable to control the economy or the people.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43766585]The most disturbing thing about the movement is that it's got a particular intelligence behind it. The people involved in it tend to be well-read, articulate, and fairly intelligent. What terrifies me is how honest and cold in putting forward their views they are. They openly state their views with little regard for how creepy or scary some of them sound.
Like the Communists and Fascists who took power in many countries around the world, they fail to realize that their views for the radical and rapid reorganization of the society they come into control of will fall flat on its face and cause a great deal of misery. Untruths and force will be required to maintain these dictatorships, which will die from swallowing their own lies and being unable to control the economy or the people.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I was wondering when they'd show up anyway. The economy's been bad enough long enough for the commies to make headway; their kind wouldn't be far behind.
Let's hope we don't need to amend Godwins law after they've been through; them fucks are the scariest thing to come onto the political scope in years.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;43766678]Eh, I was wondering when they'd show up anyway. The economy's been bad enough long enough for the commies to make headway; their kind wouldn't be far behind.
Let's hope we don't need to amend Godwins law after they've been through; them fucks are the scariest thing to come onto the political scope in years.[/QUOTE]
Have you read the particular guys blogs at all? Moldbug is a very strange chap, especially given his weird ability to invent curious terms and phrases meant to link Eastern European "Democracies" to western ones to conflate democracy with the Soviet Unions system of government.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43766936]Have you read the particular guys blogs at all? Moldbug is a very strange chap, especially given his weird ability to invent curious terms and phrases meant to link Eastern European "Democracies" to western ones to conflate democracy with the Soviet Unions system of government.[/QUOTE]
Hope it stays risible dude, because if certain rich rightwing figures like it and throw their weight behind it, it could become a much less funny matter.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;43766983]Hope it stays risible dude, because if certain rich rightwing figures like it and throw their weight behind it, it could become a much less funny matter.[/QUOTE]
Did you read their blogs as well? I find reading it is remarkably different to reading the works of Anarchists, and seeing the visible and diametrical oppositions between them is fascinating.
[quote]Ron Unz led a successful effort in the late 1990s to end California's bilingual education system[/quote]
Bilingual as in it teaches both English and Spanish at an early age[four - ten(which is pretty stupid may I add)], or bilingual as in aiding students which speak Spanish? If the latter, what.
Also before anyone goes off on me for saying, "How's that stupid?!" I'd like to propose theirs a study done on early bilingual language learning, and it's effects on learning the parental or rather standard spoken language. It may just be me, but I don't think we should be teaching kids Spanish at age one through five. They should be well seated in the current defacto language, rather then a well acknowledged secondary, and that well seating only comes with about four years of primary schooling, so they understand the use of words and grammar.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43773875]Did you read their blogs as well? I find reading it is remarkably different to reading the works of Anarchists, and seeing the visible and diametrical oppositions between them is fascinating.[/QUOTE]
Did. Trying to forget. Those shits make my skin crawl.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43774104]Bilingual as in it teaches both English and Spanish at an early age[four - ten(which is pretty stupid may I add)], or bilingual as in aiding students which speak Spanish? If the latter, what.
Also before anyone goes off on me for saying, "How's that stupid?!" I'd like to propose theirs a study done on early bilingual language learning, and it's effects on learning the parental or rather standard spoken language. It may just be me, but I don't think we should be teaching kids Spanish at age one through five. They should be well seated in the current defacto language, rather then a well acknowledged secondary, and that well seating only comes with about four years of primary schooling, so they understand the use of words and grammar.[/QUOTE]
I've went through the former, and there's really no problem with teaching kids spanish, the problem comes when you come in late (I transferred into a school in the 4th grade and was completely lost as a result)
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43774104]Bilingual as in it teaches both English and Spanish at an early age[four - ten(which is pretty stupid may I add)], or bilingual as in aiding students which speak Spanish? If the latter, what.
Also before anyone goes off on me for saying, "How's that stupid?!" I'd like to propose theirs a study done on early bilingual language learning, and it's effects on learning the parental or rather standard spoken language. It may just be me, but I don't think we should be teaching kids Spanish at age one through five. They should be well seated in the current defacto language, rather then a well acknowledged secondary, and that well seating only comes with about four years of primary schooling, so they understand the use of words and grammar.[/QUOTE]
Yeah why would California, which is swimming in Mexican immigrants, teach the Spanish language [I]as well[/I] as the English language, how idiotic
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43774104]Bilingual as in it teaches both English and Spanish at an early age[four - ten(which is pretty stupid may I add)], or bilingual as in aiding students which speak Spanish? If the latter, what.
Also before anyone goes off on me for saying, "How's that stupid?!" I'd like to propose theirs a study done on early bilingual language learning, and it's effects on learning the parental or rather standard spoken language. It may just be me, but I don't think we should be teaching kids Spanish at age one through five. They should be well seated in the current defacto language, rather then a well acknowledged secondary, and that well seating only comes with about four years of primary schooling, so they understand the use of words and grammar.[/QUOTE]
Spanish is a useful language for Californians to know. I see no problem with schools teaching it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.