This is a legal standard that Bernie is supporting. The best way that he can achieve this standard is from the White House.
Right now Bernie is not in control of the Whitehouse, he is in control of how much he pays his staff, arguably to a greater degree now than he ever would be as president. If he won't take the initiative and set the example now, don't expect him to do so as president. This is a replay of Obama, when people thought of his as a transparency candidate despite his history of supporting things like FISA. It's projection.
Traditionally, money is the most important deciding factor. At this point, it looks like Bernie is at a huge disadvantage in that area.
Bernie is not unique in that matter, this is literally everyone's dilemma when paying for things, labor included. At least Bernie has the option to respond and pay his staffers less than $15/hr in response to his disadvantage of funds, if that were a law his disadvantage would be greater, no? Say he becomes president and can get this through congress, what does that do to the next generation of Bernies who are at a cash disadvantage vs. corporate interests? You judge his ability to pay his staffers less to be for the greater good now, but not in the future?
Probably because it is a post hoc rationalization. Bernie is not taking the initiative. If $15/hr is the objective, morally right value to be placed on labor then do it. Coming up with excuses like "well, his proposed plan calls for it to be implemented at a certain time, under certain conditions.... he's having a really tough time with finances... etc. etc.." an advocate can always find a rationalization, its what the human brain excels at, and some argue developed explicitly to do (read Jonathan Haidt for some good research on this).
At any rate I'm not interested in advocacy for any candidate, I'm interested in signaling for future actions.
[–]P8rtsUnkn0wn0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I'm not convinced that Bernie has as much control over the ability to pay his interns more than $12 as you believe. Nor do I think it's fair to compare a political campaign to a private business that operates within an economic system based on the demand for goods & services.
I'd argue that it's closer to a non-profit, which is funded by gov. grants & private donations.
Put another way, the ability for non-profits and political campaigns to pay a higher wage is not driven by the private market, it's subsidized by it.
I suspect that Bernie's response would argue that such groups & organizations would be able to increase wages if the private sector economy was stronger and the best way to strengthen that economy is to increase the minimum wage.
Considering how he's funding his campaign, I'm amazed they're getting $12 per hour, especially, since last I knew, Hillary's interns get nothing.
Well sure, if you actually read the article you'll have a more nuanced and informed perspective on the matter, but then you're missing out on all the fun.
[–] reddfugee43 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Right now Bernie is not in control of the Whitehouse, he is in control of how much he pays his staff, arguably to a greater degree now than he ever would be as president. If he won't take the initiative and set the example now, don't expect him to do so as president. This is a replay of Obama, when people thought of his as a transparency candidate despite his history of supporting things like FISA. It's projection.
Bernie is not unique in that matter, this is literally everyone's dilemma when paying for things, labor included. At least Bernie has the option to respond and pay his staffers less than $15/hr in response to his disadvantage of funds, if that were a law his disadvantage would be greater, no? Say he becomes president and can get this through congress, what does that do to the next generation of Bernies who are at a cash disadvantage vs. corporate interests? You judge his ability to pay his staffers less to be for the greater good now, but not in the future?
It's always "rules for thee, not for me"
[–] flyawayhigh 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
All those mental gymnastics involving hypotheses and ideology -- but somehow,
the main point, labeled "most critically," was completely missed. :D
[–] reddfugee43 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Probably because it is a post hoc rationalization. Bernie is not taking the initiative. If $15/hr is the objective, morally right value to be placed on labor then do it. Coming up with excuses like "well, his proposed plan calls for it to be implemented at a certain time, under certain conditions.... he's having a really tough time with finances... etc. etc.." an advocate can always find a rationalization, its what the human brain excels at, and some argue developed explicitly to do (read Jonathan Haidt for some good research on this).
At any rate I'm not interested in advocacy for any candidate, I'm interested in signaling for future actions.
[–] P8rtsUnkn0wn ago (edited ago)
I'm not convinced that Bernie has as much control over the ability to pay his interns more than $12 as you believe. Nor do I think it's fair to compare a political campaign to a private business that operates within an economic system based on the demand for goods & services.
I'd argue that it's closer to a non-profit, which is funded by gov. grants & private donations.
Put another way, the ability for non-profits and political campaigns to pay a higher wage is not driven by the private market, it's subsidized by it.
I suspect that Bernie's response would argue that such groups & organizations would be able to increase wages if the private sector economy was stronger and the best way to strengthen that economy is to increase the minimum wage.
Considering how he's funding his campaign, I'm amazed they're getting $12 per hour, especially, since last I knew, Hillary's interns get nothing.
Edit: grammer.