Honestly: the minimum wage does need to go up

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

This post got me thinking.

I am firmly in favor of:

A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics

While the OP I linked to is not exactly dishonest, it's not exactly honest either.
And this is not to put flak upon the poster there, but it's an example of political rhetoric that is used to leverage one side of a conversation, ignoring nuance.

the graphic in the linked to OP:

1) Doesn't seem to take into account state laws that raise min wage over fed laws
2) Doesn't take into account the vast difference in housing throughout a state

My objection is more with 2 than 1. 1 is easy to take care of, but 2 is not easy.

New York City is WAYYYY more expensive than Rochester or Buffalo, NY; or a large number of other places within the state I could name. Yet, this graphic gives us a number, presumably an average. But that average is way skewed. But how else should they do it? Give us on graphic for NYC and another for the rest of NY State? That wouldn't work either, because then you'd need to break it down for other cities and so on. So what do we do?

We must talk about things in the big picture without getting bogged down in details, otherwise we will have to talk for eons before we can understand what needs to be done. So while I agree that the min wage needs to go up, across the US, I have a problem with the info-graphics created to support that argument. They lack nuance, and as such, are deceiving. Even if they don't mean to be, and are honestly doing the best they can to compile and sort the data, the inevitability of misleading data is going to doom us all.

That said.
Happy saint patty's day.
Was I drunk when I wrote this? You decide.

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Your first link is from a biased source, but I appreciate that they tried sticking to the facts they liked. None of the programs in the 2nd link were mentioned, and the fact is, previous legislation that was upheld was not overturned. This makes a case that The New Deal slowed down, but not dismantled, because that word by definition is tearing something down, not preventing it from coming up. Anyway, enough was accomplished to save this country.

I love your second link.

Ironically, the president got what he wanted anyway. The Court upheld a number of programs of the Second New Deal, including the Social Security and Wagner Acts,

This has to be a lie because jeff claims The New Deal was dismantled. Are you calling jeff a liar?

This major slump was caused by the sharp cuts in federal spending that the administration thought were necessary to control the growing deficit and by a reduction in disposable income due to Social Security payroll taxes.

Whoops, cutting federal spending caused a huge slump during a recession? Funny, that's what Republicans argue we should do now to combat our recession.

The two major accomplishments during this period of the president's second term were the Second Agricultural Adjustment Act (February 1938) and the Fair Labor Standards Act, also known as the Wages and Hours Act (June 1938).

Sweet.

Third link: Go back a chapter.

1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA)
1935 Works Progress Administration (WPA) National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) Social Security Act
1936 Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act Roosevelt is reelected
1937 United States Housing Authority (USHA)
1938 Second Agricultural Adjustment Act Fair Labor Standards Act

There it is! Since these weren't overturned (I know the last two weren't), I fail to see how this counts as a dismantling.

So while your first link just ignores the legislation that happened, I'm glad that your second two have supported what I've been saying all along. Cheers!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Well, it's Jeff's argument, not mine. I just grabbed random links off Google.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Ah, so once again being contrarion for the sake of it. I look forward to the day when you actually plan to engage someone in a real discussion.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No, I was trying to give you some idea of why he might be saying what he was saying, but I don't know for sure what his whole argument is.

As for your second sentence, that's insulting and dishonest.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't think you know what dishonest means.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It means I think you're intentionally lying.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Well it's your own problem if you don't believe that's what I think of you.