Reality sets in for Oregon governor

SassyIrishLass

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2009
93,598
69,655
3,605
That damn reality slaps the left in the face every time.

Oregon Governor Abandons $15+ Minimum Wage

Facing a barrage of criticism from business, and labor skepticism over threats of higher unemployment, Oregon Governor Kate Brown is scaling back her $15.52 minimum wage proposal.

A November report by the Manhattan Institute, “Counterproductive: The Employment and Income Effects of Raising America’s Minimum Wage to $12 and to $15 per Hour,” concludes that raising minimum wages is likely to result in adverse consequences that would lower total national income levels.

“The earnings gained for those who would keep their jobs would be outweighed by the earnings lost by those who would become jobless,” the report detailed. “As a result, the net income gains tend to be smaller or more negative when using the annual earnings approach than when using the wage approach.”

Facing concerns from the right and the left that her minimum wage proposal was an obvious job killer in Oregon, Gov. Brown blinked on January 28 and has scaled back her proposal to only a $.50 raise per hour statewide July increase, from $9.25 to $9.75-per-hour. The Portland metro area would see an increase in July 2017 to $11.25 an hour, with the rest of the state’s minimum wages rising to $10.25 an hour.

Oregon Governor Abandons $15+ Minimum Wage - Breitbart
 
The only other action is to reduce the cost of living by operations controlled by rich folks..

it seems to me that we would do a lot better by SUBSIDIZING the very basic
requirements of life in the USA ----ie making them AFFORDABLE to the broad base
of working people than trying to patch things up by getting employers to bankrupt
themselves by forcing them to GIVE IT AWAY. The targets are------housing, food,
health care and--------cheap internet service for all ----basic stuff for all as low prices
 
The only other action is to reduce the cost of living by operations controlled by rich folks..

it seems to me that we would do a lot better by SUBSIDIZING the very basic
requirements of life in the USA ----ie making them AFFORDABLE to the broad base
of working people than trying to patch things up by getting employers to bankrupt
themselves by forcing them to GIVE IT AWAY. The targets are------housing, food,
health care and--------cheap internet service for all ----basic stuff for all as low prices

No.
 
The only other action is to reduce the cost of living by operations controlled by rich folks..

it seems to me that we would do a lot better by SUBSIDIZING the very basic
requirements of life in the USA ----ie making them AFFORDABLE to the broad base
of working people than trying to patch things up by getting employers to bankrupt
themselves by forcing them to GIVE IT AWAY. The targets are------housing, food,
health care and--------cheap internet service for all ----basic stuff for all as low prices

No.

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids
 
At least he came to his senses. Can't say that for a lot of the other idiots who has acted like tyrants and walked over the people's voices and VOTES to put this stupidity on businesses.
 
At least he came to his senses. Can't say that for a lot of the other idiots who has acted like tyrants and walked over the people's voices and VOTES to put this stupidity on businesses.

It's a she....I think.

kate-Brown-1on41-640x480.png
 
At least he came to his senses. Can't say that for a lot of the other idiots who has acted like tyrants and walked over the people's voices and VOTES to put this stupidity on businesses.

I reject the current policy of PRIVATIZING welfare by forcing it upon
employers and land owners. The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT. The
elected officials have the OBLIGATION of ----doing whatever they do
to the economy to see to it that working people can eat without
placing the working people at the table of anyone who owns a business or
a house
 
The only other action is to reduce the cost of living by operations controlled by rich folks..

it seems to me that we would do a lot better by SUBSIDIZING the very basic
requirements of life in the USA ----ie making them AFFORDABLE to the broad base
of working people than trying to patch things up by getting employers to bankrupt
themselves by forcing them to GIVE IT AWAY. The targets are------housing, food,
health care and--------cheap internet service for all ----basic stuff for all as low prices

No.

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.
 
That damn reality slaps the left in the face every time.

Oregon Governor Abandons $15+ Minimum Wage

Facing a barrage of criticism from business, and labor skepticism over threats of higher unemployment, Oregon Governor Kate Brown is scaling back her $15.52 minimum wage proposal.

A November report by the Manhattan Institute, “Counterproductive: The Employment and Income Effects of Raising America’s Minimum Wage to $12 and to $15 per Hour,” concludes that raising minimum wages is likely to result in adverse consequences that would lower total national income levels.

“The earnings gained for those who would keep their jobs would be outweighed by the earnings lost by those who would become jobless,” the report detailed. “As a result, the net income gains tend to be smaller or more negative when using the annual earnings approach than when using the wage approach.”

Facing concerns from the right and the left that her minimum wage proposal was an obvious job killer in Oregon, Gov. Brown blinked on January 28 and has scaled back her proposal to only a $.50 raise per hour statewide July increase, from $9.25 to $9.75-per-hour. The Portland metro area would see an increase in July 2017 to $11.25 an hour, with the rest of the state’s minimum wages rising to $10.25 an hour.

Oregon Governor Abandons $15+ Minimum Wage - Breitbart


darn it

i was looking forward to a massive test run

on McDonald kiosks

--LOL
 
The only other action is to reduce the cost of living by operations controlled by rich folks..

it seems to me that we would do a lot better by SUBSIDIZING the very basic
requirements of life in the USA ----ie making them AFFORDABLE to the broad base
of working people than trying to patch things up by getting employers to bankrupt
themselves by forcing them to GIVE IT AWAY. The targets are------housing, food,
health care and--------cheap internet service for all ----basic stuff for all as low prices

No.

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?
 
The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.
 
The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING
 
The only other action is to reduce the cost of living by operations controlled by rich folks..
Moonglow, your suggestion should go without saying, but it would take someone a lot smarter than me to come up with a solution. The obvious counter option to raising wages is dropping costs. However that involves decisions from private businesses, and the record of large corporations is not loyalty to employees. As a retiree living on SS and a small pension, I can make a long list of items that increase yearly while my income remains static by act of Congress. Healthcare COB and meds goes up every year, home and auto insurances, foods, vet care for pets, utilities..the list is endless and it is like getting nicked to death. BTW, have you seen the lists of meds NOT covered, or in a barely covered tier? To work more than one job just to keep a head above water, raise a family, without hope of the kids higher education is the seed of rebellion. That's what bred the dreaded Unions. OTOH, Mom & Pop aren't rolling in dough either. Nor is it fair to ask them to impoverish themselves. Government has excluded employers of under x many employees, which is a break. So what's the answer?
 
The only other action is to reduce the cost of living by operations controlled by rich folks..

it seems to me that we would do a lot better by SUBSIDIZING the very basic
requirements of life in the USA ----ie making them AFFORDABLE to the broad base
of working people than trying to patch things up by getting employers to bankrupt
themselves by forcing them to GIVE IT AWAY. The targets are------housing, food,
health care and--------cheap internet service for all ----basic stuff for all as low prices

No.

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?
It should be up to the people in that state. They can vote for free food, housing, sex, whatever they want.
 
The only other action is to reduce the cost of living by operations controlled by rich folks..

it seems to me that we would do a lot better by SUBSIDIZING the very basic
requirements of life in the USA ----ie making them AFFORDABLE to the broad base
of working people than trying to patch things up by getting employers to bankrupt
themselves by forcing them to GIVE IT AWAY. The targets are------housing, food,
health care and--------cheap internet service for all ----basic stuff for all as low prices

No.

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?

So long as voluntary, no problem. Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul, however, is simple theft, and what the voters want be damned. Let them amend the Constitution.

Congress has the authority to levy taxes ONLY for those purposes mandated to it by the Constitution, and as you know those purposes are quite limited.
 
The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING
If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!
 
The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING
If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED
 

Forum List

Back
Top