Who's rich?

[minx]

You're rich!

Yup, make more than $80k a year and no stimulus for you! ($160K for married couples)

Because Senator Joe M from the great state of WVA feels that 'rich' folk shouldn't be 'rewarded' with a check.  Whadda you want to bet that there's about 10 people in his state who won't qualify for a check?

Oh, and he doesn't think that states and local governments need any extra aid either, so let's slice that provision out.  However, that will screw his state over, so I'm wondering if his constituents realize that.  Probably not.
But it's all about re-election and not doing what's right for the people of course.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Ordinarily I don't have a problem with rinos and dinos because what that usually means is those people don't follow the party's marching orders, just like we previously referred to in another thread.

Manchin is one of the 2 or 3 exceptions to this rule. He got elected in a red state and he hasn't forgotten that for one minute. So I'm inclined to think he's got no substance behind his decision that ascends politics and his office.

I haven't heard the latest on the bill. I know they are rightfully killing the federal minimum wage part of it. Did they vote on it yet or is Manchin's turd clogging the plumbing?

[minx]

Biden gave in on the turd and agreed to lower the income limit for the stimulus checks.

Minimum wage increase was stripped out, although I think Pelosi left it in on it's way to the Senate simply as a negotiation point. Senate Dems could drop it and say they were trying to forge a compromise.

I believe now the argument is going to be over giving any aid to state and local governments, along with bumping unemployment down from $400 to $300.

Personally I'd support lowering the unemployment and using that extra $100 to go towards underpaid workers, starting with workers in nursing homes and long-term care facilities, along with home health aides.
But we all know that will never happen - those folks should be grateful they have a job. Grateful!!

[Dave's Not Here Man]

80k for an individual isn't "rich" nor is 160k for a family, but in either case I would consider that an ample annual income. To the extent of the relief payments, people making that much shouldn't qualify for it. The problem is, if your 2019 tax returns reported that and you got your walking papers, pink slips, covid lungs, etc and had NO income since, then you are pretty well fucked, having went from that income to zero, assuming you lived somewhat relative to your income.

Again, this is a case where everybody gets a check for 2 grand, not 1400. When you file for 2021, that/those payments are taxed from 0-100% based on your 2021 AGI. I'm fine with those income limits in that scenario.

Unemployment is the one that's confusing to me. So many variables and complicated things to consider. Paying someone that was employed part time at Dairy Queen (just for example) their base unemployment plus whatever the extended federal unemployment+ and the full time bus driver the same is not what I call equitable or fair. And what about tens of thousands of people that work 2 and 3 jobs and lost one or all of them? How do we (I say we because that's what we're supposed to be thinking like, as in US) appropriate their relief in kind? Meanwhile their neighbor might have been laid off of had their hours/benefits or even wages decreased but their employer received PPP funds that are being used to pay them, whatever that amount is. Just a couple of examples of the complexity and by no means even the most difficult ones. I'm not sure the max benefit can be paid to all of them and then figured out on a 1040.

Lastly, the GOP is the flea market party and that mentality has led us headlong into a Dollar Store/Walmart and gig economy where the slide toward total markdown and eventual clearance sale of the American experience.

[minx]

I am with you on the unemployment thing. Maybe a better use of that money would be to eliminate federal taxes on unemployment benefits (cause they do get taxed as income), and maybe give the states money if they bump up the percentage of lost income they replace with unemployment benefits.

But I do agree that it's not fair that someone working FT got the same $600 that a PT worker got. And it was beyond unfair that people who were hired back by PPP funds only to be let go once those funds ran out got nothing. And even more unfair that those who were low-paid but deemed 'essential' like retail workers got totally screwed by it all.

The saddest fucking thing is that we're all arguing about who we should nickel and dime over this. Thanks Republicans.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Every time I think about the true meaning of conservatism, I see that picture of the vulture lurking near a little child dying on the ground.

[minx]

I'm reading a book called The Secret Life of Groceries.

It's both fascinating and revolting.

Fascinating in how things are done nowadays (the process for growing a 'farm' raised shrimp is very interesting). Heartbreaking and revolting in terms of the human and environmental costs. Slaves who are trapped on fishing boats for years at a time, truckers who are culled from the ranks of ex-cons and former addicts who are tricked into taking on a lifetime of debt for the 'high-paying job' of driving themselves into the ground transporting food from one place to another for pennies.

I don't see the author offering any solutions in terms of changing the system, but I do think that we as a people in general need to start thinking about the costs of getting cheap food. OTOH, we all want strawberries in January, so who gives a shit about the migrant worker being paid dirt to pick them?

And I'm getting tired of folks who are well-off saying they don't mind paying a little more. I can afford to pay a little more for those shrimp and strawberries as well. Should we tell those who can't to suck it? Well, hamburger used to be $2.00/lb, but now it's $6.00 so factory workers can make more money. Too bad that you can't have beef anymore, but I can so sucks to be you! (Clearly you should have made better choices in life, eh?)

[bobathon]

It's almost as if capitalism doesn't care about humanity.

I have ideas, but we won't do them. We're trained that it's evil to provide basic life needs, like food and shelter. Nobody deserves those things, they must earn them. We must not help one another, E pluribus I got mine, bitches.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Mar 5, 2021 11:51:42 GMT -5 minx said:

I'm reading a book called The Secret Life of Groceries.

It's both fascinating and revolting.

Fascinating in how things are done nowadays (the process for growing a 'farm' raised shrimp is very interesting). Heartbreaking and revolting in terms of the human and environmental costs. Slaves who are trapped on fishing boats for years at a time, truckers who are culled from the ranks of ex-cons and former addicts who are tricked into taking on a lifetime of debt for the 'high-paying job' of driving themselves into the ground transporting food from one place to another for pennies.

I don't see the author offering any solutions in terms of changing the system, but I do think that we as a people in general need to start thinking about the costs of getting cheap food. OTOH, we all want strawberries in January, so who gives a shit about the migrant worker being paid dirt to pick them?

And I'm getting tired of folks who are well-off saying they don't mind paying a little more. I can afford to pay a little more for those shrimp and strawberries as well. Should we tell those who can't to suck it? Well, hamburger used to be $2.00/lb, but now it's $6.00 so factory workers can make more money. Too bad that you can't have beef anymore, but I can so sucks to be you! (Clearly you should have made better choices in life, eh?)

My friend George likes to repeat a story about the loaf of bread. How much each ingredient costs, the equipment and labor to make it, package it, transport it, sell it...... and the taxes levied from the land the wheat is grown from to the sales tax at the rigister and everything in between.


And y'know, he does kinda have a point. Not just the one on top of his head. 

[minx]

One point the guy who wrote this book made that really hit home was this

We all say that we want our food to be 'ethical' and not raised/harvested/shipped by using slave labor. And we all say we're willing to pay more for that.
In an ideal world, we'd pay $1.00 more for our bag of shrimp, and that $1.00 would make it to the Tun_Luns (the shrimp worker he interviewed) at the bottom of the chain.
But the reality is that this dollar will pass through many, many hands, and there won't be anything left at the end for Tun-Lin. And the reduced demand for shrimp (since the price went up), may mean that the operator of Tun'Lin's boat goes bankrupt. The men working on that boat have no language skills in Thai (many illegally immigrated from Myanmar and were forced into lives of slavery to 'pay' for their trip), no real 'work' skills - all they know is how to work on a shrimp boat, and almost all of them are illerate. What now happens to them?

And he also did research into the sham that is the ethical labeling industry as well.

His point was that things can change, but it's not going to take the easy "Let's just pay more for shrimp" route that so many suggest, but a lot more.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

How is that different than "let's pay more for Big Macs"?

[minx]

I think the difference is that he's saying that paying more for Big Macs won't solve the underlying problem - why are so many people dependent on PT minimum wage jobs to get by?
(as an example)

He clearly points out at the end of the book that reforms in Thailand have improved the lives of some of the fishermen, but at the same time, we want cheap shrimp, so production has just shifted over to a different third world country. So I can pay more for my 'ethically' produced shrimp, even though the reforms are spread over a 15 year period, so most aren't being helped at all, but I can lunch with a clear mind.
Meanwhile, everyone else is chowing down on affordable shrimp, made by slave labor in a different country.

The solution is not simple, and will take an effort on many different fronts. One of the most powerful (as you noted in a different thread) is education. Study after study has shown the power of a comprehensive education, which does not always equate to a college education. We need to train people to think independently, use critical thinking, and also learn basic skills that require you to get a little dirty (no one has gotten hurt from learning how to check the oil level on their car last time I checked).

At the same time, it's not much benefit to the 'ruling classes' to have educated workers. Cause then they might realize they could band together and demand better. Unions did serve a good purpose, and thanks to them, most of our parents were able to work one job and have a decent standard of living. How easily we forget that.