Democrats – for the Little Guy

The Democrats always say they are for the downtrodden, the poor, the wretched, the weak, the helpless — in short, the little guys (and gals). But are they?

Democrats are for high gas prices to reduce usage. Only Democrats, by in large, have prevented drilling for our own oil offshore and in ANWAR, thus assuring our current high prices for gasoline. Please tell the poor guy working for minimum wage and paying $4.69 a gallon for gas how the Democrats have helped him out.

Democrats are for very high minimum wages. The higher the better. Oregon has the fourth highest employment DECREASE of the 50 states in the June, 2008 Bureau of Labor Statistics report but one of the very highest minimum wages in the country. Please tell the out-of-work little guy how Democrats helped him with their push for higher and higher minimum wages.

Democrats made sure that Oregonians with hybrid cars pay double to license their vehicles. They must, as with all that high mileage they simply are not paying their fair share. Please tell the little guy who scraped together enough savings to buy a hybrid how that Democratic Party enacted penalty has helped him out.

Democrats make certain that each year the amount of time spent in school is less than the year before. They make certain that all teachers, regardless of effectiveness, get paid more and more each year for less and less work. Oregon has one of the higher drop-out rates in the country and was recently ranked 49th in education in Education Week’s Quality Counts report. Democrats have made certain no student in Oregon will ever enjoy the benefits of a voucher to attend a better school. Please tell the little guy how Democrats have helped his children get a better education.

Democrats are pushing a ballot measure for open primaries for only one reason and one reason alone: to get two Democrats on the ballot at one time for one position. There is no other reason for their push. Please tell the little guy how the Democrats plan on narrowing choice and locking out other parties will help him.

Democrats want to eliminate the double majority requirement to raise taxes, yet the state continues to wantonly disregard the wishes of the people and continues to pay lavish salaries to state employees with grand benefits and huge raises. Please tell the little guy how the Democrats removing the double majority requirement will help him out.

Democrats stand proud for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. Our jobless are now competing with people who are here illegally, who do not pay taxes, who do not abide by our laws, and who are willing for work for far less than the minimum wage. Please tell the little guy who is trying to find work how the Democrats have helped him with their open borders stand.

Democrats — for the little guy!

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 03:04 | Posted in Measure 37 | 44 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • ex Democrat

    And Democrats keep getting elected because Oregonians cannot accept the nutty social policies that the Republicans want to dictate to Oregonians.

    Its about time the Republicans become mainstream and give the nutty Democrats some competetion.

    .

  • dean

    Jerry….brilliant piece. Is this more satire?

    1) Drilling for oil in ANWR IS NOT going to bring down oil prices. Not now…not 5 years from now, and not 10 years from now. John McCain, the Republican party standard bearer, voted against drilling for oil in ANWR, as did Gordon Smith, the only Republican of note left in Oregon.

    2) Way more “little guys” benefit from Oregon’s higher minimum wage than lose out through unemployment.

    3) Few “little guys” can afford hybrid cars. Many “little guys” can afford bicycles, which Oregon leaves untaxed and builds bike lanes to allow safe riding with gas tax money paid mostly by people driving over sized gas guzzler cars.

    4) Democrats consistently support more money for public education. “Little guys” (litteraly) attend PUBLIC schools.

    5) Open primaries are neutral. They do not favor 1 party over another by definition.

    6) The double majority requirement is undemocratic. It allows a minority of no voters to block the will of a majority of yea voters. Democracy favors the little guy.

    7) I don’t know of any Democrats who favor “open borders.” I do know a lot of LIBERTARIANS who favor such a thing, and they tend to vote with Republicans.

    • Jerry

      Dean – there is seldom a huge turnout for voting in Oregon, so really what you are saying is that you want a minority to make the decision for the majority. I contend that if people don’t vote, they don’t want what is being proposed, so the no-vote is actually a vote. If a majority of registered voters decide not to vote, that is fine. That is good. That is the American way. I know why you don’t like the double majority – a lot of tax and spend stuff has a much harder time getting passed.

      You can’t fool me!

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Democrats are for very high minimum wages. The higher the better.

    Yep, this has to be the single biggest screwing over for the little guy ever. I know everyone looks at the cost of government and wonders why the costs go up and up. And why are road projects so expensive? And 200 million a mile for light rail?

    Its just that axis of evil known as prevailing wage, union wage, and the minimum wage tie in. If more people were aware of how a little bump in the minimum wage means a huge bump in union contracts tied to it, there would be riots in the streets. You did know most of your state workers and highway workers are unionized didn’t you? Didn’t you wonder why unions were all ga ga over the automatic minimum wage law when it would be virtually impossible to find a single union worker who makes union wage? Well now ya know.

    Yep, when that nice bag boy gets another twenty five cents, those yahoos over at the DMV probably get another two bucks. And bag boy is a job with way more responsibility in it, they can be fired.

  • Martha

    I agree with many of your points but take issue with #6 and #7.. I don’t know what a double majority requirement is, but if it allows a minority of voters to block the will of a majority then yes I would think that this would be undemocratic, as democracy is the rule of the majority, and in a democracy the majority will vote away the minority’s ability to override the majority. However, to say that democracy favors the little guy is ridiculous. Democracy favors the majority of the people who’s votes are counted. If the little guy gets any help it is only through the beneficence of the majority, and in practice the things the majority do that really do help this little guy tend to be a happy accident.
    And #7. My experience has shown me that except for those anarchists, or libertarians that are for openly for open boarders (which is by no means all libertarians or perhaps even the anarchists) most everyone else is living in a state of cognitive dissonance about their support of open borders. Both the Democrats and Republicans support the presence of all undocumented immigrants by the nature of their deeds. Either party will SAY all sorts of things, either may even THINK that they are thinking or feeling that they are against it but the fact of the matter is that their deeds, by way of the legislation and enforcement or lack there of, is overwhelmingly and undeniably in favor of open borders. So, perhaps, this is one issue that can’t be swept under the carpet by blaming it on ‘the other guy’, because there really is no other guy.

    • dean

      Martha…my reading of history is a long progressive march of extension of political, social, and economic rights to “the little guy.” Each of these rights was painfully won through war, rebellion, protest, civil disobediance, or other action from below. Rights are as you say, seldom “granted” from above. They are hard won from below, usually at great cost.

      Democracy is the ultimate expression of little guy rights because it supplanted rule of the few by rule of the many. And the many, by definition, is made of primarily of “little guys.” That is not to say we don’t have little guys and “littler” guys (and gals) who may be oppressed….see Civil Rights Movement. See Gay Rights Movement. See Women’s Rights Movement. See American Indian Movement.

      The double majority allows a minority of no votes to beat a majority of yes votes in our off season elections. To me that defines undemocratic. Our system is rife with undemocratic rules, like the 2/3 legislative vote required to raise taxes, and the US Senate (2 from each state, meaning North Dakotans get one vote per 350,000 residents while California gets one per 16 million).

      I tend to agree with you on the immigration issue. Both sides have had reasons to “look the other way.” But then this is a more complicated issue than people would have it.

      Rupert and Jerry…I don’t know any Democratic policy on minimum wages that says “the higher the better.” The 1970 minimum wage was about 50& higher in real terms than the present minimum wage. Indexing it to inflation is one way to keep workers at reasonable wages across the board, not just unions. In fact, unions successfully bargain for wages as a group, so arguably benefit a lot less from raising mimum wages than do non-union worlers.

    • snow

      Martha, there is absolutely no impediment to the little guy voting. So if they don’t vote and stand up for themselves, I can assure you the politicians won’t. They do what the little guy should be doing, they stand up for themselves.

  • RinoWatch

    Martha,
    The “double majority requirement” came to be to *protect* the majority from the minority.

    The minority includes the OEA and SEIU unions and local governments that would place bond levies on the ballot at off times during the year, March & Sept. for example when the majority voters weren’t paying attention. These were considered “hush” elections….

    Taxes would increase with 17% turnouts, hardly a majority. Thus the double majority requiring 50%+1 turnouts to raise property taxes except every two years in November. That protects the majority…..

    • dean

      Rino…double majority simply protects the no taxes voters, period. Non voters in any election are not in need of your protection. There is this thing called personal responsibility, and being aware of elections is part of that. A non vote should never ever be counted as a no vote, because it creates an incentive to boycott the election itself.

      A better, more democratic strategy would be to limit the numbers of elections to 2 per year.

      • Crawdude

        I’m sick of the 2 party system, I think the open primary gives small party candidates a much better chance. I think you’d see a lot of DNC and GOP members crossing the lines to vote for Greens, Libertarians, etc… candidates.

        The GOP is pretty much dead in this state, this may actually help them.

    • David from Eugene

      The majority does not need protecting. If a majority of the voters don’t vote for something, it does not pass. And with vote by mail every registered voter gets a ballot for every election, no surprises. The only reason to retain the double-majority requirement is to make it difficult for a majority of the voters to get a measure they approve of passed.

      As to your contention that the unions and their supporters are a minority I strongly suggest you buy a dictionary as their ability to get the most votes makes them a majority.

  • RinoWatch

    Dean,
    The DM actually protects those of us who vote every time from being pounded into submission with tax votes 4x year. I’ll see your 2 elections per year for 1 property tax vote per year in November. Gov’t doesn’t like that ’cause it would create a shopping list that allows taxpayers to prioritize their spending.

    Craw,
    Open primary – NO way. How would it help Republicans? You cannot be serious. This is another scam being perpetrated by Phil Keisling (vote by mail) and his RINO friends.

  • Joanne Rigutto

    Reupert in Springfield, regarding the bag boy vs DMV worker –

    My best friend is a lead worker at a DMV Express office. Believe me, those workers don’t make exhorbitant wages, although they do get health care and a pension. Her pension wouldn’t be any better than mine if I had stayed in the Bricklayers union after I vested. And believe you me, they can be fired just as easily as that bag boy.

    Personally, I wouldn’t work for DMV. My friend has been yelled at numerous times, by members of the public, for things that she never did, but that some pinhead high up in management did, or for something that some other public employee did that pissed the customer off who knows how long ago. She can not speak back to the public, she can not defend herself unless she want’s to risk being fired. She can not rectify communications problems caused by higher management for risk of being fired.

    A good example of this was an instance where someone in upper management decided that the change of address forms should be placed up on the main counter instead of at the table in the middle of the office where people could walk up, get the form and either fill it out and drop it in a box or mail it, or they could go ahead and wait in line and have it processed at the office. People got really pissed off when they found out that they had stood in line for a long or short time, depending on whether her office was fully staffed that day or not (workers are pulled from offices to staff other offices that either have people go on vacation or are sick, etc.). She inquired as to whether signage was coming to let people know where the address change forms had gone and that people could just walk up to the main counter, take their form and leave or go to the end of the line or what ever. She was told that the signs wouldn’t get to the office for quite a while, so she offered to make some temporary signs herself with a sharpie and some paper. She was told that if she did she would be fired for going against policy and only the sign people were allowed to make signs. So she and the other people at the counter serving the public got an earfull everyonce in a while because of a decision that someone else made, and the customer assumed that the people at that office had made. And honestly, the customers don’t know that it wasn’t her or her coworkers hadn’t made those decisions, so it’s an incredibly frustrating situation for everyone.

    In a similar situation where a shopper was irritated at the store management, they probably wouldn’t take it out on the bag boy. The customer in that situation would more than likely understand that the bag boy wasn’t responsible for what ever it was that the customer was angry at. For some reason, a lot of people in the public assume that because a person is a public employee, they are responsible for management decisions or that they are able to do anything other than say that the public is really pissed off at something.

    If I was in that position, I’d pop the person giving me greife. Which is why I work for myself, although I’ve had employers try to lay things off on me that weren’t my fault and they caught it too.

    Also, while a few public employees make pretty good money, especially the really high ups in an agency like DMV, please don’t assume that all of the employees are making lots of money and getting $2/hour raises or even close to it. My friend is a lead worker, which means that she is responsible for running that whole office, I believe that she makes around $12/hour. I make much more than that setting tile in the private sector, and even more when I work on public money projects….. Heck, since I was a midlevel apprentice about 15 years ago, I don’t think I’ve ever made that little.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Ok – From what I can garner in your write up, your best friend is a lead worker at DMV making $12 an hour, you lay tile and make more than that. Fine. I spent plenty of time laying tile and marble. I’m actually really good at it and am qualified to do a floor, wall, ceiling marble job solo (that’s real good, not many can do that). As a matter of fact I just finished the tile work in one of my bathrooms. It has a marble floor, floor to ceiling tile walls and a curved tiled ceiling. I was going for this sort of Roman bath Bob Guccione look. Came out pretty good and the ladies love it. I did every inch of that work, including the construction of and tiling of the curved ceiling. Believe me, I know me some tile.

      Anyway, the point is of course tile setting will pay more, fewer people are able to do it and there is more skill and responsibility in laying tile than being a clerk at the DMV.

      Secondly I am assuming “lead worker at DMV” means the person behind the counter who calls your number and renews your license. If that’s true, then I think $12 and hour, plus a pension plus health care is pretty damn good. I don’t think its over paid but in now way shape or form would I consider that under paid.

      Now, the big question is, is she in AFSCME or another applicable union? If she is, then is her union contract tied to the minimum wage like a lot of other union contracts are? If so, then even though she does not make minimum wage, she gets a raise every time the minimum wage is raised.

      That was my only contention. The fact that you have a friend at DMV making $12 doesn’t really change that. And no, I do not believe for a second that a city or state employee can be fired as easily as a bag boy.

      • dean

        Rupert…would a $12 an hour DMV worker (with benefits) meet your definition of a “little guy (gal)?”

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Sure, as I would the $12/hr suckers who voted for the autopilot minimum wage hike, never knowing how the automatic pay increases for state employees that went with it meant government was going to cost them more, and more, and more each year.

    Democrats screwed most $12 and hour little guys and benifitted some (those with contracts tied to the minimum wage, read union thugs). Yippee

    Class warfare isnt much my thing though. Pitting one group against another on that basis I always find to be more the Democrat milieu than my own.

    • dean

      But if raising the minimm wage also bumps up the pay of non-union workers, don’t more little guys than not benefit from it being raised?

      • Jerry

        No. If you are out of work you do not benefit. Take a look around.

        • dean

          Jerry…how many little guys are out of work versus how many gain from a higher wage? Statistically. Not Jerrily.

          • Jerry

            June 20, 2008 report from Bureau of Labor and Statistics:

            The largest over-the-month decreases in employment (nonfarm)
            occurred in California (-10,900), Florida (-6,000), North Carolina
            (-3,800), Oregon (-3,700), and South Carolina (-3,100).

          • dean

            Jerry….over 30 states have minimum wages that are HIGHER than the national rate. Some southern states have no state minimum wage.

            As of April 08 here is where the no minimum wage states rank in employment:

            Tennessee: 38th
            Louisiana: 19th
            Mississippi: 45th
            Alabama: 17th
            South Carolina: 45th (tied with Miss.)

            A sampling of states with HIGHER than federal minimum wage:
            Hawaii: 8th
            Iowa: 9th
            New Mexico: 9th (tied)
            Delaware: 12th
            Maryland: 12th (tied)
            New Hampshire: 14th
            Arizona: 16th
            Washington: 25th (midpoint)

            States with higher than average minimum wages who rank poorly in employment, include:
            California: 49th
            Oregon; 41st
            Nevada: 44th
            Illinois: 38th

            But overall, there appears to be little correlation among states between employment levels and minimum wage rates.

            So your core argument does not appear to hold water. Higher minimum wages appear to result in higher wages at the bottom, but not higher unemployment levels. Some states have low minimum wages AND high unemployment, while others have high minimum wage AND low unemployment. Other factors must be more important.

          • Jerry

            If their is no correlation, as you say, then why do we need any regulation? I think Sybella has the point on this, as she actually employs others. You and I don’t. Let the free market take care of things and it will all work out. It always does.

            Remember, people who don’t think they are getting enough pay for what they do can ALWAYS seek a better job. Rather than legislate this meaningless drivel, just let people figure out what they want to earn and get jobs that pay that much.

            Government has no business in the free market economy. None. And, in Oregon, which was my focus, the excessively high minimum wage has contributed for certain to high unemployment. You only mentioned generalities like higher than the fed rate – you did not say how much higher. 3 cents or 3 dollars?? It makes a big difference, and Oregon’s is one of the very highest in the nation and we have one of the very highest job losses according to the BLS report I cited.

            So, again, I made my point perfectly clear, made it will, and know it is sound. You have only attempted to confuse the issue with meaningless stats that include no real figures as to the actual minimum wages in those states.

            If you are so sure I am wrong, then you tell me why Oregon has one of the highest job losses of any state in the country if the high minimum wage has nothing to do with it.

            Go ahead – explain it so even I will understand.

          • dean

            Jerry…with due respect, your position is philosophical, not pragmatic. There are reasons for the government to “be involved” in the so-called free market on too many levels to list here, but among them:

            1) Markets overeach and crash due to speculation
            2) Markets fail to account for “externalities” (pollution)
            3) Markets leave many at the bottom in poverty, and morals aside those people become a burden on everyone else

            Higher wages at the bottom prop up wages some distance above and help maintain a middle class society.

          • Jerry

            So you say. But, over reach and crashes self correct. Again, we don’t need as much government regulation as we now have.
            And we don’t need artificial props. They never have worked, they never will work, and they are wrong.

  • SYBELLA

    When the minimum wage increases, so does the cost of evereything my business uses. Not only does the wage increase, but the cpst pf everything else we sell cost more. My vendors are hit with the same thing. Their suppliers also have the same thing. The original increase in cost snowballs by the time it gets to retail.

    The minimum wage people, just saw their wage increase eaten up by costs down the line. By the time these increases are absorbed by every retail and other types of businesses, it usually reduces the buying power by minimum wage people. The automatic increases annually only increase inflation. The little guy would actually be better off when a smaller mandated wage and any business that understands how hard it is to get good employees, will be sure to take care of that good employee, and thank goodness, the businesses don’t have to deal with those who don’t care.

  • Anonymous

    dean said
    “7) I don’t know of any Democrats who favor “open borders.”

    How about Ted Kulongoski, Tom Potter, Sam Adams, Democrat legislators, BlueOregon participants and every other loony who support santcuary citys and states.

    • dean

      Show me where they support “open borders,” as in anyone can come in, no questions asked.

  • Joanne Rigutto

    And that’s the big issue regarding minimum wage. If the wage is increased everything else goes up, if it is lowered what happens?

    Not being faceicious, this is a real question. And if the minimum wage is lowered, how low are you all willing to go?

    • sybella

      I for one would be able to increase wages to deserving employees and reduce wages to the lazy ones. Competition by it’s nature will lower prices because there will be room to do so. The snowball would start melting.

      Most businesses, contrary to popular opinion are not ogres. We are already seeing businesses close because it’s too hard to keep it going. You see it isn’t the raises so much but all the associated costs that go with it. Increased payroll taxes as well as higher workers comp insurance. Also liability insurance for your business is also based on payroll. That’s just on the end business. Those additional costs that the suppliers and manufacturers also have to pass on.

      Actually, I would like to see the minimum wage be lowered back to at least $5.50. Before this wage was indexed for inflation we already paid our good employees $8 an hour. Unfortunately we have been unable to increase them because the not so good workers got their raises.

      I’m sure you’ve noticed your costs going up beyond the normal inflation. Lower wage people have those same increases.

      Then, I would like to see a return to the teaching our kids “there ain’t no free lunch” If you do not work, neither shall you eat” The way it is now they expect a business to hire them just to support them, instead of working to the end so they can support themselves. I’m not their mama.

      Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m aware some need more help than others,but a good attitude will go a long way to getting help from me.

    • sybella

      I failed to say, my good employees who were making 8 dollars an hour 4 years ago would probably be making at least 10, a couple of them more.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Everybody’s an expert on employment and the minimum wage. However actually having employees is worth a lot more than all the statistics one can pull from a dark crevice. The minimum wage, price controls, rent stabilization all these things are simply different sides of the same coin. Government attempts to change basic economics by decree. On whatever level it works, if at all, there are often severe repercussions. Until you are directly involved in the process, by being an employer, landlord etc. you rarely have a true appreciation of what those repercussions are.

    I generally find when discussing economics one needs ground rules. With the minimum wage its pretty simple. If someone doesn’t have employees, listen to their opinion, nod politely, move on to a different subject. On this particular issue I view it as similar to talking with a teenager. Experts on everything, with experience in nothing.

    • Jerry

      Exactly my point to Dean. Thanks. You are totally and absolutely correct.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Thanks. You are totally and absolutely correct.

        Hey, now you are starting to sound like my wife.

        A few billion more and my work on this planet will be done.

  • Joanne Rigutto

    Sybella suggested rolling the minimum wage back to $5.50/hour. Let’s take a look at that.

    40 hours/week at $5.50/hour comes to $880/month for gross wages. Unless a person has one or two dependants they can claim, or is able to claim that they are exempt, they are going to loose around 1/3 of that to withholding. I’ve been an employee enough to know what the difference was between my gross wages and my net wages. Even though, theoretically you’ll be getting that back when you file your taxes, the people you owe money to for food, rent, insurance, etc. aren’t going to wait. So realistically, what that person is going to be living on is $616/month if they work only 40 hours/week and are like myself, an individual with no dependants. Unless you live 3/unit, or are living with your parents, I don’t see how a person can survive on those kinds of wages, not unless the current cost of living in the Portland Metro area goes way down. The only way for the cost of living to go down that far is for the prices of the things we have to buy to survive to go way down, and that ain’t gonna happen unless there is a depression.

    Sybella, out of curriosity, and if you can tell me without going into private details of your business, how long do you keep a person on minimum wage? I’m assuming it’s a starter wage not a permanent wage as you said that some of your employees are paid more. Also, what does your company do? Is it manufacturing, service related, or?

    The point I’m trying to make, is that even if miminum wage isn’t meant to be a permanent wage, I wonder how long a person would have to live at that wage to get to the higher wage?

    I understand the risks inherent in having employees and the costs involved in making payroll, carrying insurance and all of the other problems associated with having employees. While I don’t have employees of my own, I do occasionally have to use other independant contractors who charge by the hour on jobs that are fixed bid jobs not time-and-materials jobs. Even though the wages are much higher than mimimum wage, the cost-bennifit equation is the same as is I had employees working at any hourly wage. The longer that sub takes to do the job the less money I make, and maybe I don’t make any money at all if I didn’t bid the job high enough.

    • sybella

      Actually, if a person starts at minimum wage, they don’t stay there more than thirty days then are raised depending on what kind of an employee they are.

      An employee that is only there for a paycheck and has no further desire to improve themselves never get raised. Truthfully, we prefer they just quit and they do, mostly because they don’t care in the first place. Typically we go through 3 to 5 employees for each one that sticks. The usual stay is 3 days to the first paycheck. Constantly off sick,

      These employees cost a business a lot of money.

      I look for an employee that is truthful, honest, not averse to working for their pay and dependable, personable, clean.

      The good employee, generally is not trying to look good for anybody but themselves and the business they work for. Ethics is that word.

      These people stay on the job, they care about their job, and they like their job. They like their customers Truthfully we don’t pay them a really high hourly wage, but depending on how thy do their job, they are treated to bonuses once or twice a year depending on their output. These bonuses run any where from $500 to $5000 depending on them and the profit. A good employees helps the bottom line.

      This is a convenience type store with a good customer base.

      I hoped I answered your question

      • Joanne Rigutto

        Thanks Sybella, you did.

    • dean

      Rupert…your ground rule precludes the rest of us from taking anything you, Jerry, or many others say seriously on a wide range of subjects. Are you sure you want to go there? Every useful opinion has to be based on direct personal experience? Thus an economist at Stanford who actually studies the statistics on the relationship between unemployment and minimum wage across a state, nation, or the world is dismissed because he or she has no employees? And if I cite that economist you get a double dismissal? A single data point (your direct experience) is worth more than the accumulated data? Seriously?

      This goes a long way to explaining your willfull ignorance on so many things…..like the history of public forestry in the United States, global warming, the nature of Supreme Court decisions….

      But no….I’m more forgiving (hey, I’m a liberal). To me, “actual experience,” while helpful, does not substitute for broader, objective data and analysis on any given subject. Actual experience is useful in helping to frame a subject, to act as a check on questionable findings, to weigh into forming an opinion. But we live in a big, complex world. Limiting your own or anyone else’s opinion value based only on personal experience with a topic is quite a limit if you stop and think about it. Long live the generalist and the scholar.

      Joanne…my work experience as an indie is the same as yours. I often “employ” subcontractors or team up with them on projects. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not. But everyone needs to make enough to pay the bills. Its called civilization.

      • Jerry

        Dean – minimum wage jobs are by default entry-level. No one ever said you should be able to live on an entry level wage. If you feel so sorry for everyone, then give them some of your money. And until you are footing the bill yourself your comments certainly do not carry the credibility of someone who does foot the bill themselves. You are not even close.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Rupert…your ground rule precludes the rest of us from taking anything you, Jerry, or many others say seriously on a wide range of subjects. Are you sure you want to go there? Every useful opinion has to be based on direct personal experience?

    Straw man argument.

    I never said that.

    LTR

    • dean

      Right Rupert. You said “on this particular issue.” So one supposes your ground rule only applies to this single issue. Very convenient for you. But I’ll retain the right to borrow it and apply it to other issues in the future if you don’t mind. Forest policy for example. Rail transport. Bicycling. I can think of a good number.

      Jerry, yes…minimum wage jobs are entry-level. But many other low end wages are tied to the minimum wage for the reason Sybella states. Whatever wage people get hired at becomes the base from which they get raises later on. In your and Sybs world, people would start at $5.50 and hour or less and maybe after a few years work up to the present Oregon minimum wage. They would stay perpetually behind, as is evidenced by average wages in the southern states versus elsewhere. ANd I already showed you that these southern states have no better employment numbers than the northern ones. So no advantage to be had there. Of course…you can dismiss the actual data because it is from people who may not have employees right?

      Back to your original post….the answer is most assuredly yes. It is the Democratic party that is for the little guy, because it is the party that supports policies that help the little guy, from minimum wage to food stamps to social security to public school funding to health care. When your party comes up with something, anything that directly (not trickle down) helps the little guy let us all know. It will be a reason to celebrate.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        I will make a huge assumption here and assume you have re-read as instructed, and now understand what my ground rule is with minimum wage discussions with non employers. I simply don’t engage in it. Therefore were you to do the same on virtually any topic one has to ask how I would ever notice or care?

        You have never engaged me in any sort of argument, discussion or debate about virtually anything I have ever stated here. What you do is read quickly, read wrong, and then engage in inane arguments over points never made or side issues never contested. Your lack of reading ability precludes any sort of serious discussion with you on any topic whatsoever, at least in written form.

        I would therefore not notice in the slightest if you refused to engaged in debates with me on virtually any subject since I would be hard pressed to think when you ever have. Watching your verbal flailing around is entertaining, but the very idea that you could ever address a point with which you had disagreement in anything but the absurd fashion with which you do here is more humorous still.

  • Anonymous

    Dean, who pays you to post here?

    No sane person would spend the amount of tme you do on this blog on a daily basis unless they were being paid to do so.

    I think you are a fool, but I do not believe you are insane (beyond being mentally unbalanced enough to believe that modern liberalism/socialism is a viable political philosophy).

    You claim to be a landscaper, but no one putting in eight honest hours a day outdoors during their trade’s high season could post as much as you do.

    I submit that your landscaping business, while it may exist on paper, is nonexistent and that you are a paid shill fronting for some leftist group and being paid to do it.

    So, tell us Dean, who pays you to post here?

    • dean

      I am sworn to secrecy. The pay is barely adequate by the way.

      • dean

        And I should have mentioned…I get an extra bonus when some yahoo like yourself calls me names rather than deals with the issues. Bring it on.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)