![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:00 (UTC)It's nice when you have a successful business in a large town. There are options.
In a crossroads small town, with four eating options and 2500 people.... not so much. Raise the prices and people complain for months. Even talk about you behind your back, because it's that or the weather. Heck, take out the soft serve ice cream machine to save money at the pizza buffet, and people keep asking five years later when you're bringing it back, because their cousin in the city 150 miles away says their store still has theirs.
True, captive audience. But it also means that any price increase due to whatever cost fluxuation impacts that whole wage increase all the more.
Example above, buffet has gone up three dollars since 2009 -- what used to be $5.75 at lunch is now $8.75. Two kids could eat for free on Kid's Night, now it's one. A very successful loyalty card (buy 10 get one free) have disappeared and been replaced with a point system that give you a few dollars off. Coupons are pretty much shit compared to what they used to be. Labor is scarce here, but it's still really hard to meet the 18 percent target that corporate sets (down from 22% pre-2009). It means the manager has to work harder, not necessarily smarter (one of the reasons I'm no longer there). It means the place isn't quite as clean as it should be. It means hiring the first warm body that walks in the door drug- and conviction-free because you're already short four people and there really isn't anyone else left in town to fill out an application because they're basically unemployable. It means the pizza on the buffet no longer rotates after 20 minutes... it sits there until it's gone or the buffet is over. Food quality decines because food waste has to come down to cover expenses. (I don't agree with that last bit, but there you have it in The Real World.)
But you're still the most successful family-priced business in town. Even though the senior citizens on a fixed income have cut down to once a month, because they can't afford it. It's a treat now, instead of a weekly after-church event. And the wage earners who got the raise? Well, they can pay their higher utilities a bit better, but now the burger place in town costs almost 8 bucks for lunch instead of 5. And don't even talk about the sit-down place -- can't get out of there for under fifty.
Yeah. Not everything happens in The Big City. Pity that.