Mediaboss Marketing

THE number of teenagers working summer jobs has dropped through the years, for a variety of reasons. This trend seems sure to accelerate if Democrats in Congress ever succeed in implementing a $15 minimum wage.

An analysis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics says one reason for the decrease in teen workers is that more of them are studying instead. In July 2016, more than two in five 16- to 19-year-olds were enrolled in school four times as many as were enrolled in 1985, Bloomberg reported recently.

Teens aren't going to summer school just because they failed a class and need to catch up, reporter Ben Steverman wrote. They're also enrolling in enrichment courses and taking courses for college credit.

There are other theories as to why fewer young people are spending their summers on a job somewhere. One is that older Americans are remaining on their jobs at a higher rate than in years past. Another is that parents are encouraging their children to pad their college resumes by volunteering or enrolling for extracurricular activities instead of working. Another is that more immigrants are competing with teens for entry-level jobs.

These jobs pay a minimum of $7.25, the federal minimum wage, although a majority of states have approved a higher minimum wage. Liberal states lead the way in paying more the minimum wage is $11 an hour in Washington and Massachusetts, for example. California's is $10 ($10.50 for companies with 26 or more employees), Connecticut's is $10.10.

Some places have sought to go even higher, with detrimental effects on smaller businesses in particular. Some governors and city councils have rejected similar efforts, citing concerns about their impact.

Yet liberals in Congress wish to make a $15 minimum the law of the land. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patty Murray, D-Wash, last month introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2017, backed by several Democratic colleagues. The House version is sponsored by Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Bobby Scott, D-Va.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a tweet that this latest effort is about dignity in the workplace & making sure American workers can provide for their families. This has long been the go-to argument for proponents of such efforts. But the minimum wage isn't intended to serve in that capacity.

Instead, it's intended as a starting point. Writing in 2013 at U.S. News and World Report, Democratic strategist Penny Lee noted that 50 percent of McDonald's franchise owners were once hourly wage employees, and that Walmart promotes more than 160,000 employees a year. These are all individuals who are able to gain a higher wage and better standard of living through experience and on-the-job training, gaining the kind of skill sets needed to live out the American dream, she wrote.

Lee added that the opportunity for upward mobility seemed to be missing from the debate over hourly wages. When defining what amounts to a fair wage, she wrote, shouldn't the fair question be what corresponds to the market value of what the worker produces?

The answer was yes then and it's yes now.

Read the rest here:
Progressives unrelenting in their push for $15 federal minimum ... - NewsOK.com

Republican legislative leaders announced last night that they have agreed to a final agreement on a new state budget that would commence July 1. As usual, neither Governor Cooper nor Democratic members of the legislature were invited to participate in the negotiations, though ,of, course, the Governor can veto the bill. Not surprisingly, given the disastrous track record of the past six years, the proposal comes up woefully short.

Fiscal policy expert Alexandra Sirota of the N.C. Budget and Tax Center put it this way last night:

The final budget that state lawmakers will vote on in the coming days reflects missed opportunities for North Carolina. By pursuing more tax cuts, even as states like Kansas have reversed course and abandoned their own failed tax-cut experiment, leaders of the NC General Assembly have chosen to stay the course and continue to do less for more North Carolinians.

North Carolinas leaders should put forward a budget that truly reflects the priorities of our growing state, including healthy and safe communities, quality educational opportunities and skills training, thriving communities, and broadly shared economic prosperity. They should make a sustained commitment to rebuilding Eastern North Carolina after Hurricane Matthew rather than offering just a fraction of what is needed. Instead, lawmakers have chosen to give even more benefits to the wealthy and profitable corporations. As state leaders continue to dig their heels in on their failed tax cut experiment, it is time for leaders across the state to emerge and demonstrate the harm of another budget that is not worthy of North Carolinians.

And this is from the good folks at Progress NC:

Once again, Republican lawmakers would rather give tax handouts to big corporations and millionaires instead of investing in North Carolinas future, said Gerrick Brenner, executive director of Progress NC Action. This budget provides absolutely no plan to raise teacher salaries to the national average, and short-changes rural communities across the state compared to Gov. Coopers budget. Working families deserve better.

And this is from Governor Cooper himself:

While we wait for details, the budget outlined by legislative leaders continues to shortchange education, economic development, and middle class families in favor of more tax giveaways that help the wealthy and large corporations. Those are the wrong priorities.

Poisoned water and poisonous healthcare policy were featured ...

More here:
Progressives: GOP Budget deal represents another missed opportunity - The Progressive Pulse

Democratic Party leaders are up to their old tricks. They have lost at every level of government across the country because they fail to give voters reasons to support them.

This seemingly inexplicable behavior is quite deliberate. Giving the people what they want endangers their relations with wealthy individuals, corporations and big banks. Because they can no longer fool all of the people all of the time, they have returned to a more open and obvious move to the right.

Cast aside They are already planning to throw Black voters and political progressives under the bus. The people who have been relied upon to give them the margin of victory are cast aside in favor of people who either wont vote for them at all or who will pull the party to the right.

Democrats cry out that Trump voters arent all racists and will still vote for Democrats. So says Senator Al Franken among others. He recommends, You have to go and talk to them. And you have to listen. Bernie Sanders joins in and says that Trump voters arent sexist, racist, homophobes even though many of them fall into those categories by their own admission.

Words like these ought to set off alarm bells. While even Sanders talks about winning over people who are quite happy with their political choices, they say little or nothing about meeting the needs of Democrats who have left the party in frustration.

Nothing in return Black Americas rewards for putting Bill Clinton in the White House were the crime bill and the end of public assistance as a right. Black people got nothing for their Clinton love except higher poverty rates and prisons bursting at the seams.

Black voters have been slowly neutered over time and are still recovering from the Obama lovefest.

There isnt even a peep about being so openly taken for granted. In years past, even the most callow Black politician would manage to mutter some complaint about being ignored and disrespected.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor her $1 billion team of campaign consultants knew that she was in danger of losing several key states that traditionally voted Democratic in presidential elections. A mere 80,000 votes would have given her an Electoral College victory.

Own Hillarys defeat The Democrats wont own that this debacle is of their making, a result of making vapid appeals to people who wanted to see real change. Instead, they declare that making overt appeals to Trump voters is a new political goal.

Bill Clinton won the nomination and presidency by making the case for his conservatism. Barack Obama was even more slippery than Slick Willie. He raised more money from Wall Street than any other presidential candidate, while simultaneously marketing himself as a progressive.

So great is Democratic trauma regarding the Trump victory that they may successfully use these or new ruses to pull off another presidential win.

But the Democratic rank and file always end up being the losers, whether their party wins or doesnt. The banks always get a bailout and so does the military-industrial complex. Even Obamacare was a Republican plan promoted by right-wing thank tanks. Election outcomes never give banksters, defense contractors or Big Pharma cause for alarm.

Wont go away Former presidents usually disappear from view and write their memoirs. But Obama is openly making election endorsements in France and Germany, and hanging out with royalty in the United Kingdom. His activities are not accidental, they are an extension of what the Democrats do at home. The ruling classes need to be mollified and that apparently is a permanent job for Mr. Hope and Change.

The Democratic Party is proving itself to be treacherous yet again. There must be a movement away from them, a debate about how to achieve true political success. If not, there will be more repeats of the past with a party emerging victorious while its voters remain the losers.

Margaret Kimberleys column appears weekly in BlackAgendaReport.com. Contact her at Margaret.Kimberley@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Continue reading here:
Blacks, progressives under the Democrats' bus - Florida Courier

Their candidate, Jon Ossoff, has a real chance to win partly because he isnt suffering from the gap in voter passion and commitment that usually bedevils Democrats, especially in off-year races. It would be a big deal if Democrats could more often close their passion-and-commitment gap. Even modestly higher turnout could help them at every level of politics and hasten the policy changes that liberals dream about.

Demographic groups that lean Republican generally have higher voter turnout than Democratic-leaning groups.

After all, polls show that a majority of Americans support progressive positions on most big issues. Yet Republicans dominate state and federal government.

Turnout is a big reason. Last year, Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 voted for Clinton over Trump in a landslide. Only 43 percent of citizens in that age group voted, however. By contrast, Americans over age 65 supported Trump and 71 percent of them voted. Similarly, Americans in their 30s were more likely to support Clinton, and less likely to vote, than those in their 50s.

The pattern also exists across ethnic groups. Asian and Hispanic voters went for Clinton in a bigger landslide than millennials, but most Asian and Hispanic citizens didnt vote.

And the gaps grow even larger in midterm elections. A mere 17 percent 17 percent! of Americans between 18 and 24 voted in 2014, compared with 59 percent of seniors.

If youre liberal and frustrated by these statistics, you should be. But you shouldnt be defeatist.

What can be done? First, dont make the mistake of blaming everything on nefarious Republicans. Yes, Republicans have gerrymandered districts and shamefully suppressed votes (and Democrats should keep pushing for laws that make voting easier). But the turnout gap is bigger than any Republican scheme.

Second, keep in mind that turnout is a human-behavior problem. It involves persuading people to change long-established habits. And there is a powerful force uprooting all kinds of habits today: digital technology.

More specifically, smartphones are changing how people interact with information. Id encourage progressives in Silicon Valley to think of voting as a giant realm ripe for disruption. Academic research by Alan Gerber, Donald Green and others has shown that peer pressure can lift turnout. Smartphones are the most efficient peer-pressure device ever invented, but no one has figured out how social media or texting can get a lot more people to the polls yet.

Finally, remember that the political left has had some recent successes in raising turnout, and they involved old-fashioned political excitement. Obama won partly through higher turnout among younger and nonwhite voters. Black turnout even exceeded white turnout in 2012, before slipping last year.

This months British election is also intriguing. The Labour Party did better than expected, helped by a surge of younger voters angry about Brexit. But Britain also offers a caution to anyone who thinks higher turnout depends on far-left candidates, like Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader. Corbyn didnt win, and he didnt come very close.

My instinct is that the answer for Democrats involves a passionate message of fairness of providing jobs, lifting wages, protecting rights and fighting Trumps plutocracy. It can be bolder than Democrats have been in decades. But it should not resemble a complete progressive wish list, which could turn off swing voters without even raising turnout.

People who dont vote regularly arent progressive activists in disguise. They tend not to follow politics closely. Although most lean left, they are not doctrinaire, and theyre not looking for white papers. They are looking to be inspired.

Obviously, these are tough times for Democrats. They havent had much electoral cheer since 2012 and its unclear whether Ossoff will win. But Democrats should remember that they still have one enormous advantage.

The countrys real silent majority prefers Democrats, if only that majority could be stirred to vote.

See the rest here:
If Liberals Voted ... - The New York Times - New York Times

Six times the B.C. NDP proposed legislation that would have led to the ban of union and corporate political donations in British Columbia.

And six times the B.C. Liberal government stood in the way.

But thisThursdaythe B.C. Liberals willunveila new look.

The 2017 speech from the throne will be very different from throne speeches of the past,since the party was firstelected in 2001. Many of the ideas the party fought against while in power will now be included as Liberal policy.

Banning union and corporate donations - check.

Increasing social assistance rates - check.

Transit funding without a Metro Vancouver referendum - check.

And here is the political kicker.

NDP MLAs willhave to vote against all of those changes they've championed for yearsif they want to form government. That is because the upcoming throne speech will be pegged to a confidence vote expected to end the 16 year Liberalpolitical dynasty.

"What you are seeing is exactly what you would expect from a government in the situation that we are in where we won the electionin having the most seats and the most votes but not having a majority," said Social Development Minister MichelleStilwell.

"I think we are always looking at creating the bestBritish Columbia that we can."

B.C. Premier Christy Clark arrives June 12, 2017 at the swearing-in ceremony for her new cabinet. (Richard Zussman/CBC News)

It's not just legislative votes the Liberal partyhasitseye on. It's the next provincial election.

With the B.C. legislature in an unprecedented time of uncertainty, predicting when that next election will be is impossible.

But the Liberals know that what they did leading up theMay 9election didn't work and this new course is an attempt to lure back voters in Metro Vancouver.

As bits and pieces of the speech from the throne are leaked to the media, thepicture emerging is of a Liberal party willing to substantially change.

B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan promised to make education a defining issue in the 2017 provincial election. (Denis Dossman/CBC)

This could mean a more direct approach onovercrowded Surrey classrooms, a focus on increasing child care spaces in Metro Vancouver and closing loopholes for evicting renters and for foreign investors parkingmoney in Vancouver real estate. All issues that weren't part of the last Liberal election campaign, but were featured in the platforms of both theGreens and NDP.

"For sure, it's about getting votes, but it's about connecting with people," said B.C. Liberal cabinet minister Sam Sullivan. "We have really recognized how we didn't do well in the urban area. We did really well in the Interior, the North, the suburbs, etc, but we were unable to connect with urban voters."

Many of those urban voters weredisappointed when February's provincial budget was the ninth in a row to provide no increase to social assistance rates.

This, despite recognition the province hasbecome one of the country's most expensive places in which to live and the government's claim it was using the province's wealth to help those who needed it most.

It's only now, with the confidence vote looming, that the Liberals will increase those rates by $100 a month at a cost of about $53 million a year.

The same goes for increasing disability rates. The government hadbattled for years with advocateswho were angry rates were left unchanged from 2008 to 2015.

Now, the Liberals are promising to do just that if they stay in power or win the next election.

"We all know that there is a lot of cynicism and skepticismof people in politics. Ithink this will add to that cynicism," said disability advocate JaneDyson. "Ithink that a lot ofpeople's confidence in politicians will be further eroded from what we are seeing now."

There are some core principles the Liberals are unwilling to budge on.

Don't expect the throne speech to include a change of direction on the Site C dam or Kinder Morgan. The Liberals will also likely stick by thebalanced budget pledge and theMasseyBridge project.

But beyond that, almost anything goes. And that will set up an election where the major parties appear to stand for many of the same things.

Leaving voters to wonder if they believe any of them.

Here is the original post:
BC Liberals adjusting principles for a shot at power - CBC.ca