Say what you will about Bernie Sanders

[_EAllusion]

Cinepro is correct that if you pay someone enough, they'll be willing to do most jobs. That also bothers me about the "Americans won't do these jobs" rhetoric. What is really the case is that not enough Americans will do them at the labor price point that maintains the level of productivity and price we are accustomed to. Can manufactures price tomatoes to reflect $18 dollar an hour labor costs and have the same demand? Almost certainly not. So that's a problem. It's also why you can't arbitrarily raise wage floors.

[_ajax18]

Can manufactures price tomatoes to reflect $18 dollar an hour labor costs and have the same demand?

Why not, if people have no other choice? Gasoline got very expensive and people had no choice but to pay for it.

[_EAllusion]

Why not, if people have no other choice? Gasoline got very expensive and people had no choice but to pay for it.

Do you have a crippling tomato addiction or something?

[_honorentheos]

Can manufactures price tomatoes to reflect $18 dollar an hour labor costs and have the same demand?

Why not, if people have no other choice? Gasoline got very expensive and people had no choice but to pay for it.

These are issues related to basic macroeconomics. Gasoline is a different animal with low price elasticity but even then demand responds to price within those parameters. Tomato consumption is much more responsive to price. This concept was the basis for a debate a couple of years back you may remember regarding entitlement reforms and the "common basket of goods" used to adjust certain entitlements for inflation. The conservative argument could be summarized as, "Just because the price of tomatoes goes up doesn't mean a person will buy tomatoes at that price. They'll either go without or find an alternative product." That's overly simplified by A LOT, but the point being you can't compare how gasoline prices and tomato prices affect demand for those products.

[_honorentheos]

Plus, conceptually this doesn't solve anything. If American workers are being paid 3x the current price to harvest tomatoes and this is reflected across the types of goods and services that we current outsource to low-wage workers, the net affect is basically to put more goods and services out of the reach of more people's ability to afford them.

At some point you're going to have to get on board with one of two sides here, ajax. Either most of us are destined to fall further and further out of the middle class and into that sad political whipping post of being a generation that can not expect to have an equal or better standard of living than the one before them because we suck. Or, you might begin to see that the issue is one of capital flow, both domestically and globally.

[_ajax18]

Do you have a crippling tomato addiction or something?

It wouldn't be just tomatoes. It'd be all produce. Perhaps more people would just go without. But maybe that's how it should be. When you exploit people through cheap labor it always comes back to bite you even harder down the road.

[_Kevin Graham]

So which is it? Did Obama have an 'aha" realization where his daughters persuaded him that denying the term "marriage" to homosexuals was a legal endorsement of stigmatizing same-sex unions or did he go through a multi-year phase of opinion changing that he was aware of and felt the need to point out to gay special interests despite not knowing where that opinion would end up?

You're creating a false dichotomy. He never said he had an "ah ha" moment after talking with his daughters. He said,

“I have to confess my children generally had an impact on me. People I loved who were in monogamous same-sex relationships explained to me what I should have understood earlier, which is it was not simply about legal rights but about a sense of stigma, that if you’re calling it something different it means that somehow it means less in the eyes of society.”

This seems to dovetail nicely with what he said before, that he evolved on the issue. It seems legit to me. I mean why drag his daughters into this years later when, according to you, Obama does nothing unless there is a political benefit of some kind. Makes no sense. Especially when his daughters are now old enough to know their father is lying about them.

It seems clear to me that Obama saw the issue as a matter of semantics. He didn't want to apply the "gay marriage" label because of the way the Religious Right was using it to their benefit. In his mind, he was working on the side of homosexuals by protecting their rights and benefits in civil unions, something only recognized in five states, Illinois included.

[_Kevin Graham]

It's exactly the same thing.

No it isn't.

It's also absurd to argue that there are any "jobs Americans don't want."

It is a figure of speech. Of course Americans will work a job if you pay they outrageous sums of money, but the fact is there are some jobs they won't do for minimum wages, and illegal immigrants provide those services to our benefit. Working in the lettuce fields is a classic example.

Name any job, and there are plenty of Americans would do it for a certain wage. Picking tomatoes? Maybe Americans wouldn't do it for $6/hr, but I know plenty that would do it for $18/hr.

So you think. And some may say that only because they've never done it before and think it isn't so hard. Or maybe they'd do it for a few days just to prove a point. But I doubt you know any Americans who would commit through an entire season of it. John McCain famously said he'd pay someone $50/hr to pick lettuce in Yuma Arizona, and couldn't get any takers.

[_Kevin Graham]

Getting somewhat back to the topic of Sanders vs. other alternatives, I have to admit this bit of news is uncomfortable when thinking about voting for Hillary.

CNN - Kochs could be Ok with Clinton Presidency

I have every reason to believe she is better than Cruz or Trump as far as where they would take the country in terms of basic human and civil rights. But it really underscores the point Sanders makes about her not being on the side of the common voter when it comes to economic policy. It could be the best bit of anti-Hillary advertising the Kochs produce this election, and they took a page from Trump in doing it by using the free coverage that kind of sound bite was sure to create rather than pumping out ads from one of their dark money-funded S-PACs. Sadly, it's also true so...yeah.

The reason the Kochs would consider supporting her is because they know she can be bought. She knows the game. She's made tens of millions just in a couple of decades, for doing nothing more than doing favors and writing books. They would support her financially for the same reasons Donald Trump once did.

[_ajax18]

but the fact is there are some jobs they won't do for minimum wages

Why would they do the job if social welfare pays enough to get them by without working at all?