The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
Where did anybody say anything about watching people struggle...
what dreams point is simple... I think you've been teaching for over 10 years my friend... you ok making the same money as a 22yo that just started with the same credentials and zero experience? No? Me neither
20+
Experience should definitely count for something and I'm not 'completely' in disagreement with what dreams was stating- I didn't necessarily like the tone of the post (which essentially stated millennials are entitled little snots that have no idea how the real world works)... or the notion (not his suggestion) that a revamped wealth distribution model needs to be redesigned with the middle class assuming the brunt of the responsibility.
The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
Where did anybody say anything about watching people struggle...
what dreams point is simple... I think you've been teaching for over 10 years my friend... you ok making the same money as a 22yo that just started with the same credentials and zero experience? No? Me neither
In your example should a new teacher have to take a second job to be able to put food on the table?
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
And please, I've lived in the DC metro area my entire life. Quit with the lectures. I know how the economy works here. But yes, I still read the article. It made me chuckle again at the naivete of Ms. Alexandria O. Cortez and the youthful, eager, innovators she brought to town with her. Please.
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
So you expect AOC to change the whole of the American system in the course of a few months?
You realize she wants what you want right? And this is only the start.
She is doing what she can and you go after her because why exactly?
I really don't get the anger. Maybe you should reserve that for the people who don't want any change, there are plenty of those around that you can focus on. But here you are picking at this. Why?
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?
It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.
Yes, she has asserted we need to target the uber rich and corporations. Instead of working on that *legislation,* she launched a *non-binding reolution* called the Green New Deal that -- in fact -- demands multi-trillion dollar results practically overnight. I don't expect much legislative impact out of her at all, because she's too busy posting Instagram videos about herself.
The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
Where did anybody say anything about watching people struggle...
what dreams point is simple... I think you've been teaching for over 10 years my friend... you ok making the same money as a 22yo that just started with the same credentials and zero experience? No? Me neither
In your example should a new teacher have to take a second job to be able to put food on the table?
In the ideal world, no. Who says they have to anyway?
To run with your question.... Should Thirty and the other experienced teachers be the ones to make that sacrifice? Absolutely not
Yes, she has asserted we need to target the uber rich and corporations. Instead of working on that *legislation,* she launched a *non-binding reolution* called the Green New Deal that -- in fact -- demands multi-trillion dollar results practically overnight. I don't expect much legislative impact out of her at all, because she's too busy posting Instagram videos about herself.
So then isn't this the opportunity we know is right to pursue? This is true change. The only people truly fearing this approach would be the uber rich- people dipping into their pile of gold where their mound wouldn't be so high.
Whether she can get it done or not remains to be seen... but people demonstrated they sought change in your last election. If change is what the people want... rolling the die on this venture seems a healthier bet than rolling the die on Donald don't you think?
The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
Where did anybody say anything about watching people struggle...
what dreams point is simple... I think you've been teaching for over 10 years my friend... you ok making the same money as a 22yo that just started with the same credentials and zero experience? No? Me neither
In your example should a new teacher have to take a second job to be able to put food on the table?
In the ideal world, no. Who says they have to anyway?
To run with your question.... Should Thirty and the other experienced teachers be the ones to make that sacrifice? Absolutely not
As a new teacher, I worked a second job to put food on the table. But I was also incredibly irresponsible with my money. Negligent, in fact, in how I wasted it on things. Additionally, in the NOVA economy, I paid the rent by having multiple roommates. That's what young people do here.
I also knew I didn't have to choose teaching as a career. I could have done, and was encouraged by my family to do, something more lucrative. It was a choice I made.
Twenty-five years later, I can afford to live alone and I have most definitely learned to live responsibly on my most average income.
The incomes of educated people like me -- and the young staffers on Capitol Hill whose best years are ahead -- are not the ones I lose sleep over.
AOC is in favour of a living wage for all. As a concrete expression of that, she has put it into place in the one environment she has most influence - her own office. This is the step she can take, and she’s taken it. Contrary to what people seem to be claiming, it isn’t a flat pay structure - those with more experience and responsibility do get paid substantially more, just not as much as in other, less equitable workplaces. This is one model for change; there are many other possible models. Whether or not this applies to low wage industries is completely irrelevant because that’s not what she has hiring responsibility for at this moment. “She’s implementing a living wage and equitable salary structure with her staff - damn her for not solving poverty instantly!” It really looks like some people are reaching for something to criticize.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
seems a weird add to an otherwise solid post. She has control over it, she should do what she thinks is right. People that don’t like it don’t have to apply for her jobs.
The only economy she will affect is the attention economy. And with that attention, she will impact elections, probably not for the better in vast swaths of this country. That is my criticism. Gotta go shopping now (at the bargain basement). Have a fun day, ya'll.
seems a weird add to an otherwise solid post. She has control over it, she should do what she thinks is right. People that don’t like it don’t have to apply for her jobs.
"More equitable salary structure" probably would have been a better phrase.
To my mind, it is both reasonable and equitable, i.e. fair, that people working at a full time, demanding job get paid a living wage. It is also fair that there is a less extreme range between lowest earners and highest earners. Ocasio-Corez has, I think, made it clear that she wants to tackle the areas of extremes, the super-rich CEOs, but that's not what she's dealing with in her own office. She wants to make that wage gap a bit narrower. It's a step in the right direction.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
We already complain about traffic. We already have overcrowded schools. Rents are already outrageous. Nothing new here. Absorbing 25,000 additional people isn't really going to be that big a deal, if all of them even come from elsewhere. Amazon already has warehouses in NOVA, we've got a Google headquarters, IBM, AT&T. Bezos himself has lived in DC for a year or so now after buying the WaPo. Highly educated tech people already reside here. Basically it's going to be a restructuring of an already sprawling landscape. People are excited to see what happens.
They're going into an area near National Airport (aka Reagan) called Crystal City that had been developed decades ago for exactly this kind of thing, but that plan fell flat, never living up to its promise. My understanding is that there's already a lot of empty warehouse space waiting for them. There's a transit line, with a history of malfunction we're used to, but bringing in Amazon has spurred renewed commitment to upgrade it. I imagine the airport itself might feel some strain. Reagan can't really expand much because of the geography, and it's not that big of an airport. So there's that.
Retailers and restaurants can't wait for the increased foot traffic. It's not a high density residential area, so those kinds of businesses in that area generally struggle. There will be a boom for them, for sure, and maybe some new residential building. There aren't really a lot of current residents to displace. In fact, I read an article about a lot of condos and apartments sitting empty. This will actually vitalize an area that's been waiting for it. I haven't read one single negative piece of press or heard one person gripe. I guess that's how we're different than NY???
I'm neutral about the whole thing. We like welcoming big companies here. We like jobs, even though, yes, the fucking traffic sucks. If you drive the 95 corridor you expect gridlock, but there's already plans to widen south of DC to about halfway to Richmond. There are hardly any more trees to cut down in the process, so that's not a concern. Maybe it will become a slightly bigger pain in the ass to get to the airport, but that's about the extent of how it might impact me personally. I don't have any other reason to head over to that part of the burbs. But who knows? It could become super trendy like all the hipsters remade Brooklyn, and then I'll have hang out there to be cool.
Er...what? Crystal City? Now my drive to the Anthem will be even more painful. Fuck what I said in the last 25 posts.. NO AMAZON IN VA! I had just assumed it would be in the Dulles Corridor.
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?
It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.
There is some irony in all of this... The two things that enabled me to move up the "class" income level were: 1. Working for a corporation. As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business. 2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources. For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives. I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses. I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married. Many people do this. And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?
It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.
There is some irony in all of this... The two things that enabled me to move up the "class" income level were: 1. Working for a corporation. As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business. 2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources. For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives. I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses. I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married. Many people do this. And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.
I don’t know for 50% or more people marriage is simply a delayed 50% tax!
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?
It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.
There is some irony in all of this... The two things that enabled me to move up the "class" income level were: 1. Working for a corporation. As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business. 2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources. For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives. I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses. I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married. Many people do this. And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.
What's the divorce rate 50%...because an awful lot of people toss away the economic advantage fairly easily in divorce.
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?
It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.
There is some irony in all of this... The two things that enabled me to move up the "class" income level were: 1. Working for a corporation. As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business. 2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources. For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives. I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses. I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married. Many people do this. And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.
What's the divorce rate 50%...because an awful lot of people toss away the economic advantage fairly easily in divorce.
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?
It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.
There is some irony in all of this... The two things that enabled me to move up the "class" income level were: 1. Working for a corporation. As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business. 2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources. For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives. I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses. I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married. Many people do this. And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.
What's the divorce rate 50%...because an awful lot of people toss away the economic advantage fairly easily in divorce.
Great minds
Yes true, divorce is painful financially. But staying together is very lucrative.
These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality. My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind. I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?
It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.
There is some irony in all of this... The two things that enabled me to move up the "class" income level were: 1. Working for a corporation. As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business. 2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources. For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives. I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses. I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married. Many people do this. And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.
What's the divorce rate 50%...because an awful lot of people toss away the economic advantage fairly easily in divorce.
Great minds
Yes true, divorce is painful financially. But staying together is very lucrative.
We already complain about traffic. We already have overcrowded schools. Rents are already outrageous. Nothing new here. Absorbing 25,000 additional people isn't really going to be that big a deal, if all of them even come from elsewhere. Amazon already has warehouses in NOVA, we've got a Google headquarters, IBM, AT&T. Bezos himself has lived in DC for a year or so now after buying the WaPo. Highly educated tech people already reside here. Basically it's going to be a restructuring of an already sprawling landscape. People are excited to see what happens.
They're going into an area near National Airport (aka Reagan) called Crystal City that had been developed decades ago for exactly this kind of thing, but that plan fell flat, never living up to its promise. My understanding is that there's already a lot of empty warehouse space waiting for them. There's a transit line, with a history of malfunction we're used to, but bringing in Amazon has spurred renewed commitment to upgrade it. I imagine the airport itself might feel some strain. Reagan can't really expand much because of the geography, and it's not that big of an airport. So there's that.
Retailers and restaurants can't wait for the increased foot traffic. It's not a high density residential area, so those kinds of businesses in that area generally struggle. There will be a boom for them, for sure, and maybe some new residential building. There aren't really a lot of current residents to displace. In fact, I read an article about a lot of condos and apartments sitting empty. This will actually vitalize an area that's been waiting for it. I haven't read one single negative piece of press or heard one person gripe. I guess that's how we're different than NY???
I'm neutral about the whole thing. We like welcoming big companies here. We like jobs, even though, yes, the fucking traffic sucks. If you drive the 95 corridor you expect gridlock, but there's already plans to widen south of DC to about halfway to Richmond. There are hardly any more trees to cut down in the process, so that's not a concern. Maybe it will become a slightly bigger pain in the ass to get to the airport, but that's about the extent of how it might impact me personally. I don't have any other reason to head over to that part of the burbs. But who knows? It could become super trendy like all the hipsters remade Brooklyn, and then I'll have hang out there to be cool.
Er...what? Crystal City? Now my drive to the Anthem will be even more painful. Fuck what I said in the last 25 posts.. NO AMAZON IN VA! I had just assumed it would be in the Dulles Corridor.
We were all surprised by Crystal City. It was never even discussed as an option. They pulled one over on us. I'm thrilled, however, that it wasn't Herndon.
I don't think we're going to see the effects immediately, if we even notice them at all. It will be a gradual impact. This morning I read the first 400 workers are set to arrive this year. They'll bring in 1000 more next year. No mention what happens after.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.
So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here. Smaller staff=fewer jobs. Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative. The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure. Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers.
I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.
Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.
I thought the same thing. When I was 22 I was a student teacher, which meant I had to pay about $10,000 for the privilege of working as a teacher for a year. It is like they want to skip the working hard and gaining experience, and move right into the higher end jobs. I also agree with your next post. What is so admirable about this? She is taking someone else's money and giving it to those with zero experience. I didn't see anything where she herself is taking a dime of a paycut, she's forcing the longtime experienced workers to take one so she can pass her policy, why she doesn't even follow suit. There's nothing admirable about that. Now if she would accept a salary of $52,000 to show her support, that is a different story.
This thread is a nice microcosm of the general population, although certainly more left leaning. Some of these AOC proposals are very polarizing and even those of us that are inclined to support Democrats and take very progressive positions, are not supportive of her short legislative track record. And what she is proposing is emblematic of hard left. Without bringing the current Trump thread nonsense over here, some of these proposals pose far more risk to Democratic presidential chances in 2020 than anything that does or does not come out of the Mueller report.
Comments
20+
Experience should definitely count for something and I'm not 'completely' in disagreement with what dreams was stating- I didn't necessarily like the tone of the post (which essentially stated millennials are entitled little snots that have no idea how the real world works)... or the notion (not his suggestion) that a revamped wealth distribution model needs to be redesigned with the middle class assuming the brunt of the responsibility.
My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind.
I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck?
But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office. Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.
You realize she wants what you want right? And this is only the start.
She is doing what she can and you go after her because why exactly?
I really don't get the anger. Maybe you should reserve that for the people who don't want any change, there are plenty of those around that you can focus on. But here you are picking at this. Why?
Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?
It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.
To run with your question.... Should Thirty and the other experienced teachers be the ones to make that sacrifice? Absolutely not
So then isn't this the opportunity we know is right to pursue? This is true change. The only people truly fearing this approach would be the uber rich- people dipping into their pile of gold where their mound wouldn't be so high.
Whether she can get it done or not remains to be seen... but people demonstrated they sought change in your last election. If change is what the people want... rolling the die on this venture seems a healthier bet than rolling the die on Donald don't you think?
I also knew I didn't have to choose teaching as a career. I could have done, and was encouraged by my family to do, something more lucrative. It was a choice I made.
Twenty-five years later, I can afford to live alone and I have most definitely learned to live responsibly on my most average income.
The incomes of educated people like me -- and the young staffers on Capitol Hill whose best years are ahead -- are not the ones I lose sleep over.
seems a weird add to an otherwise solid post. She has control over it, she should do what she thinks is right. People that don’t like it don’t have to apply for her jobs.
Gotta go shopping now (at the bargain basement). Have a fun day, ya'll.
To my mind, it is both reasonable and equitable, i.e. fair, that people working at a full time, demanding job get paid a living wage. It is also fair that there is a less extreme range between lowest earners and highest earners. Ocasio-Corez has, I think, made it clear that she wants to tackle the areas of extremes, the super-rich CEOs, but that's not what she's dealing with in her own office. She wants to make that wage gap a bit narrower. It's a step in the right direction.
I had just assumed it would be in the Dulles Corridor.
1. Working for a corporation. As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business.
2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources. For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives. I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses. I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married. Many people do this. And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4991413/dianne-feinstein-kids-green-new-deal/?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_source=GlobalNews&fbclid=IwAR1csk3lryFPIzihPQSk9T6vga2T_fp8VbgX9KYsaAyaqoAotOkW-sqKmDY
lol
I don't think we're going to see the effects immediately, if we even notice them at all. It will be a gradual impact. This morning I read the first 400 workers are set to arrive this year. They'll bring in 1000 more next year. No mention what happens after.
I also agree with your next post. What is so admirable about this? She is taking someone else's money and giving it to those with zero experience. I didn't see anything where she herself is taking a dime of a paycut, she's forcing the longtime experienced workers to take one so she can pass her policy, why she doesn't even follow suit. There's nothing admirable about that.
Now if she would accept a salary of $52,000 to show her support, that is a different story.
A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not
Real economic responsibility means sustaining the communities and physical resources on which society is built
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/25/green-new-aoc-deal-fiscally-responsible-climate-inaction