Federal vs State vs Local

To answer this question I would have to start from the assumption that the majority of Republicans (as are to a lesser degree the dems) are not big sellouts. Because otherwise all their talk about Christian values and a better America would just be that, talk.

I like to believe in people.

 

I don't think that's a safe assumption.

 

I understand why you have this impression, but I don't think it's accurate.

I think this is mostly because people tend to focus on what the Federal government does vs. what the States do. In specific the US Constitution which delineates between State and Federal but leaves delineation between State and Local up to each individual State's Constitutions (I'm not sure how they all are, whether they are generally similar to each other to the US Constitution or what. I could read through them all but... meh, I don't have the time or inclination at this point.)

It's sort of like how people tend to focus so much on the President and what he or she does and says, even attributing Congressional actions to them (and even when the President's cabinet proposes a law it's still Congress that passes, amends, etc. it, President can introduce bills via proxy or veto them, which in turn can be overturned... there's a bit more to it of course but that's the basics).

I think this is because Federal action (obviously) affects a much larger amount of people, and tends to get much more media coverage.

 

I think it's more about politicians being hypocrites (which is not a new thing), than Americans in general not caring. I'm sure many in Iowa care quite a bit, including people that had supported those politicians (at least before now); though I suppose that's an assumption as well. It likely also depends on how well the media has been covering it, and how many like you like looking at local stuff rather than just getting distracted.

I'm not familiar with Iowa's constitution, so I don't know if it goes against that or if it just goes against the principles of limited government that Republicans might say they want but don't always act in favor of... including when it comes to Federal vs. State issues.

 

It's just mindblowing to me how this all goes down to Firk people over and it's like yeah, casual.

American politics for the most part seems utterly uninterested in helping out the majority of Americans. Maybe that's part of Trumps appeal to blue collar workers and others

 

Politics screwing over the little guy is not exactly unique to America. That said, I do think that certain interests have focused on taking over/exploiting American politics a bit more than some others, in large part because of it's position as a super-power, it's currency being used as a reserve currency abroad, and it's general size and wealth.

If it would collapse, they'd move onto the next thing (and/or create it to service themselves).

 

I'll never understand the obsession with capitalism to the extend that the US seems to be pushing it. Corporations are put on some freaky pedestal.

How do you justify a minimum wage that is not a living wage? I just don't get it.

 

This is getting a bit off topic but... I thought I'd answer, and it loops around a bit. Please note I'm not trying to argue with you, just providing an explanation and arguments regarding some things that you can think about to help you understand, rather than convince you that those arguments are the only or fully correct ones.

I'd actually say Corporations being put on a pedestal is more of an issue with Corporatism. http://www.differencebetween.net/mi...ifference-between-capitalism-and-corporatism/

I don't think that website does a good job of summing how Corporatism actually ends up functioning in many situations (it's very much focused on the ideal manifestation of both). In my view it can often have the opposite effect. TARP is an example of this, as is the creation of the FED with it's special status, no-bid contracts, uneven application of regulations, and the defacto treatment of Corporations as being a special class of "person" for the sake of certain things (esp. lobbying and campaign finance and taxes). You might also find the comments on that page interesting (and/or annoying).

Of course, the US is a mix, and I'm sure some of the blame rests on Capitalist ideology (I don't think a complete lack of government regulation in business is good, personally), but in terms of Corporations being put on pedestals...

In terms of your average American Resident... I don't think many of them actually like Large Corporations. At best what you might get is people talking about lowering taxes so they'll hire more people and thus supposedly stimulate the economy in that respect... but then the lowering taxes would also be for everyone else (possibly more so) as well so...

This is a bit of a different discussion, though more on topic. There are a two main arguments against raising the minimum wage (for any reason):

1. Raising the minimum wage doesn't inherently mean that more people will get paid more. It can, in some cases, easily lead to companies simply employing fewer people (especially with the rise of our robotic overlords, though in some cases the number of illegal immigrants in a given region [which don't need to be paid a minimum wage since employing them is illegal to begin with] has also been a factor.) Or, in some drastic cases, it can lead to companies folding as they are unable to meet to the minimum demands of the employees they must have in order to operate.

(Anecdote)
There was an oriental fast-food teryaki bowl place next to the the grocery store I frequent. I went there a couple times, but they apparently felt they needed to raise their prices... and to me the food wasn't good enough to buy at a buck more. So I stopped going. It seems there may have been some other issues. Eventually, the owner cut back so much on hours for their employees they were only open for 3 days out of the week (down from 6 previously) and for those days only 4-6 hours.

Eventually it seems to have been sold off (to an "entirely new" oriental fast-food teryaki bowl place, which so far seems to be doing better in terms of employees and hours, albeit not price).

Obviously, there are undoubtedly lots of stuff going behind the scenes there, but the argument is that that sort of thing could play out... except without the new bowl place taking over because they have the same mandatory issue of minimum wage.

2. Raising minimum wage puts more money out without increasing supply of goods or services. This could cause inflation in certain markets, such as in essentials like food and gas. Especially if rather than laying people off, business owners choose to raise prices (or do both) in order to cover costs/maintain previous profit margins.

If the prices of everything goes up enough as a result the raising of minimum wages could actually end up hurting those people (though it's more likely that the overall benefit is simply minimized and they end up with a still-below-living wage or something), not to mention everyone else that was earning more than minimum wage but now has to contend with higher prices without a subsequent increase in their own income.

(Anecdote)
You made the thread about Trump's Mexico tariff plan for example. You mentioned how they can "simply raise prices" in order to stick to the US. In a similar way, employers can stick it to their own country/state/county/city (except maybe in Iowa if the bill passes) by raising prices... and there's a fair chance many would probably have to if they can't/don't want to lay people off.


I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with these arguments, and I'm only providing a basic overview.


The counter argument to the above generally is:

In theory, a higher paid workforce can sustain more than the accompanying price increases, and as such actually broaden the market for various goods and services (which in turn could translate into pay increases for people above minimum wage as abundance of trade spreads around).


Personally, I think raising minimum wages without curbing the FED's penchant for steadily increasing inflation is only half a solution at best... and could in some areas make things worse... as such I'm a great fan of letting states/counties/cities determine for themselves what minimum wage is best... but this also means that some will have particularly low standards... which doesn't always sit well with me since, as this thread I think shows, politicians don't always do what's best for their constituents.

 

So what I'm hearing is that we need to audit the FED.

 

Wasn't meant to be. That said, it seems to me that raising Federal MW from 7.25 to a "living wage" would not be a small amount.

Any (free) studies you could point me to? Or books I might be able to find in a library?

This isn't an area I've studied personally, I'm just repeating the arguments I've heard (and like I said, I don't necessarily agree with them).