As both sides move toward extremes.
The folks on the Left lead the charge?
However as I noted elsewhere, the GOP craziness and acceptance of conspiracy theories worries me more. Our country will have a hard time functioning when ~32% of the population can not accept that their unpopular candidate lost the election.
16 comments:
To me, a change in attitude can often be the result of learning more about an issue and having an evolving perception as a result. The girl I'm dating has a Trans son. It's confusing to me, and something I felt different about before it got so close to me, but as a result my attitude has changed and I find myself frustrated by those who feel how I did not that long ago, but who have no desire to learn more about it.
Our country will have a hard time functioning when >32% of the public disapproves of what "the President" is doing. the uniter
I also think there's a huge difference between the Democratic rank-and-file versus Democratic politicians. The rank-and-file is significantly to the left of the elected Democrats, who tend to be more moderate. I don't think you see the same sort of gap on the Republican side.
The reason we have moderate democratic politicians is half of the democratic voters are moderate (not sure about that) I do think even the moderates have become more liberal than they use to be.
From that Quinnipiac poll... Biden is still doing better than all the other politicians... :-O
Americans were also asked about their opinions of elected officials, and say ...
Joe Biden: 49 percent favorable, 42 percent unfavorable, and 6 percent haven't heard enough;
Donald Trump: 37 percent favorable, 57 percent unfavorable, and 3 percent haven't heard enough;
Nancy Pelosi: 36 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable, and 13 percent haven't heard enough;
Kevin McCarthy: 12 percent favorable, 33 percent unfavorable, and 54 percent haven't heard enough;
Liz Cheney: 29 percent favorable, 31 percent unfavorable, and 38 percent haven't heard enough;
Chuck Schumer: 27 percent favorable, 37 percent unfavorable, and 35 percent haven't heard enough;
Mitch McConnell: 15 percent favorable, 58 percent unfavorable, and 26 percent haven't heard enough.
Jerry,
You thought Trump did okay with more than 50% disapproving of his actions and behaviors. :-)
Quinnipac Poll Details
Charts of the day: Here’s a partisan history of the culture wars since 2000
Drewbie,
Yes... Life is much more complicated than many believe...
When I was younger I thought I knew most everything...
Now I am understanding how much I still have to learn or consider...
Congratulations on your next step towards wisdom, because no one gets wise without first struggling against their own confirmation bias.
A Living Wage for All Is Attainable
Is a tidal wave of evictions about to hit American families?
While Congress and the White House wrangle over spending on infrastructure and social programs, the most pressing problem for the U.S. remains little acknowledged and unaddressed: Tens of millions of people work full time and can’t afford food, clothes, housing, health care and a proper education for their children. Their struggle is sowing division, fanning political and social tensions and raising doubts in many Americans’ minds about the merits of capitalism and democracy.
It doesn’t have to be this way. A living wage is attainable for everyone who works full time, but it will require business and government leaders to recognize the problem and work together to fix it, which many of them don’t seem eager to do. Despite the chatter in corporate America about stakeholder capitalism and the importance of workers, about half of the employees of the biggest U.S. companies couldn’t support a family of four. As for Congress, Democrats have offered mostly temporary relief measures, and Republicans don’t appear to be bothered that many of their constituents are struggling.
But make no mistake, huge numbers of Americans go to work every day and don’t earn a living. When I share the numbers in conversation, I’m often met with skepticism and amazement, which I attribute to a lack of awareness more than caring. Most people don’t have time to pore over economic data, which is the only way many of them will encounter the enormity of the problem given the country’s segregation along class lines. America’s working poor are all but invisible to those fortunate enough to have well-paying jobs.
You don’t have to dig deep in the data to see that the U.S. economy isn’t working for everyone. In the first quarter, median weekly pay for the 112 million full-time workers was $989, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which amounts to $49,450 over a 50-week work year. For a single person living in, say, Nashville or a comparable city, that’s enough to cover the basics and even have a bit left over for entertainment or savings. But remember that half of full-time workers — 56 million of them — earn less than the median, which in most cases isn’t enough to support one person in the most affordable places, never mind expensive coastal cities.
The math becomes trickier once children enter the picture. A single parent with one child would need about $10,000 a year more than the median income to get by in Nashville, and about $30,000 more in a pricier city like Washington. Adding a nonworking spouse makes things harder, requiring about $20,000 a year more in Nashville and $40,000 in Washington. And in all cases, the gap widens with the number of children. Best positioned are two working adults in affordable cities like Nashville, although not even two median incomes are enough to support a family in more expensive markets.
Here’s the bottom line: The median income is probably enough if you’re single with no children or partnered with another full-time worker and live somewhere other than a coastal city. That excludes a lot of people. Exactly how many is hard to say based on the available data, but given the number of full-time workers and the median pay, it’s safely tens of millions of working Americans.
There’s no silver bullet for inadequate wages, but it is possible to lift full-time workers and their families out of poverty. For starters, companies that can pay workers a living wage should do so, not as an act of charity but as a recognition that they crucially depend on a healthy and motivated work force to produce their goods and services and make enough money to consume them. Businesses also need economic and political stability, both of which are compromised when much of the work force is impoverished, as growing divisions and unrest have shown in recent years.
It may sound naive to think that companies will voluntarily forgo profits today for an uncertain payoff down the road, but they do it all the time. Research and development are two examples. A growing number of companies are also spending money on environmental, social and governance, or ESG, initiatives, investing in green technology to manage environmental risks, for instance, or improving governance to avoid mismanagement. Paying workers a living wage is no less worthy an investment. In fact, it’s an important component of companies’ relations with labor, one of several social factors that may affect financial performance, according to the “S” in ESG theory.
It’s not just how much workers earn but also how long they can expect to keep their jobs. Highly paid workers, particularly those without children, may be less burdened by frequent job changes. But those scraping by on subsistence wages often don’t have extra money to fill gaps between jobs or move to find new work. Those gaps are particularly hard on families, and children often bear the brunt. That doesn’t mean workers should have guaranteed employment, but companies should view workers as partners rather than interchangeable cogs in the corporate machine, or worse, a threat.
There’s something else companies can do that wouldn’t cost them any more and might even save them money: Allow workers to relocate. As the pandemic has revealed, lots of work can be done remotely as effectively as in an office, and much of it is in industries like technology and banking that tend to be clustered in expensive coastal cities. Workers who move to lower-cost locales would instantly enjoy a higher standard of living — and possibly help revive their adopted cities and towns. Companies could still provide local offices for those who want to work outside the house occasionally, or even full time, and it would likely be cheaper than maintaining sprawling corporate headquarters.
Of course, not all businesses can pay more or operate remotely. This is where government can lend a hand. All businesses should aim to pay a living wage, but for those that can’t afford to, government should supplement workers’ wages through programs like the earned income tax credit. Government assistance is likely to be spent on necessities, which could also help local economies and spark a virtuous cycle of more spending and higher wages, particularly in small towns without large employers.
Sure, government assistance could end up subsidizing labor costs for companies that can already afford to pay workers more, but that’s not new. Highly profitable companies such as Amazon.com Inc., Walmart Inc., McDonald’s Corp. and Home Depot Inc. routinely rely on taxpayers to sustain their workers. If big, powerful companies insist on misusing government programs, it’s hard to stop them. Ultimately, a free market relies on good faith cooperation between public and private sectors, and nowhere is that more urgently needed than ensuring that all full-time workers earn a living wage.
That was Laurie's A Living Wage Piece.
Fricking Liberals... :-)
They want to invite millions of low education low skill employees in.
Then they complain that incomes are low and blame the employers.
And then say that society should pay poor ignorant people for having more kids than they can afford.
I am not sure how our society is supposed to function with Liberals insisting that single Mom's and Deadbeat Dad's is a viable acceptable family unit?
"Here’s the bottom line: The median income is probably enough if you’re single with no children or partnered with another full-time worker and live somewhere other than a coastal city. "
"Sure, government assistance could end up subsidizing labor costs for companies that can already afford to pay workers more, but that’s not new. Highly profitable companies such as Amazon.com Inc., Walmart Inc., McDonald’s Corp. and Home Depot Inc. routinely rely on taxpayers to sustain their workers. If big, powerful companies insist on misusing government programs, it’s hard to stop them. Ultimately, a free market relies on good faith cooperation between public and private sectors, and nowhere is that more urgently needed than ensuring that all full-time workers earn a living wage."
It seems like housing is the worst expense that people need help with.
There are an estimated 553,742 people in the United States experiencing homelessness on a given night, according to the most recent national point-in-time estimate (January 2017). This represents a rate of approximately 17 people experiencing homelessness per every 10,000 people in the general population.
Ten million people in over 5 million low-income households receive federal rental assistance. people in 5.2 million American households use federal rental assistance to afford modest housing. 68% are seniors, children, or people with disabilities
Healthcare is also very expensive, but the govt does more to meet this need.
The percentage of Americans covered by the Medicaid public health insurance plan dropped to around 17 percent in 2019, but the share remains high when compared to previous years. In 2000, Medicaid covered just ten percent of the population in the United States.
Twelve million Americans use the (Obamacare) exchanges to buy insurance, and 85 percent of them receive a subsidy.
Food is not as big of expense but many people receive aid.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) is the nation's most important anti-hunger program, reaching 38 million people nationwide in 2019 alone.
The landmark Feeding America study about the response to hunger. One in 7 people in our nation utilize our network of food banks.
Child care is also expensive, but I don't think that many people receive assistance.
If companies won't pay people more the govt should tax them more to ehlp pay for all these assistance programs.
Laurie,
Why again would anyone pay more than what the market requires?
Do you plan to send additional money to Amazon?
When you get 3 quotes to have your roof repaired, do you pay more than is asked?
Again... If you want higher wages and more benefits... Buy from the expensive firms that pay this... Not foreign firms and low cost firms.
Hmmm. For many people, taxes are a big expense, sometimes higher than other "necessities." That's the problem with government redistribution in the name of charity. It creates unwilling givers and ungrateful receivers, harming the humanity of both. Government thus sets these two sides against one another.
Post a Comment