You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
25

[–] flyawayhigh 1 point 25 points (+26|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Someone is trying to seed the idea of hypocrisy in this custom title. But this is not hypocrisy.

This is a legal standard that Bernie is supporting. The best way that he can achieve this standard is from the White House. Traditionally, money is the most important deciding factor. At this point, it looks like Bernie is at a huge disadvantage in that area. One interesting reason for this disadvantage is the proliferation of low-paid or unpaid volunteers for candidates generally.

But most critically, as @VictorOscarAlphaTang, pointed out in this excellent comment on this page:

It is not hypocritical. Bernie Sanders is pushing to incrementally raise the minimum wage until it reaches $15 per hour in 2020. Unless I missed the last 4 1/2 years, it is not 2020 yet.

What we are seeing here is a refusal to lie down and let the corporate candidates crush this one.

This is no more hypocritical than refusals to "unilaterally disarm" nuclear weapons.

0
2

[–] reddfugee43 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

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?

It's always "rules for thee, not for me"

0
0

[–] 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.

1
-1

[–] flyawayhigh 1 point -1 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

0
1

[–] YourDumbWhat 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

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.