$480 million wasted to date by brainwashed socialists on Democrat Party and their POTUS candidates

Posted by freedomforall 4 months, 2 weeks ago to Politics
6 comments | Share | Flag

The title of this post was changed as a demonstration of bias - in this case the opposite bias usually shown by mainstream media for liberal socialist causes and candidates.
SOURCE URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/campaign-finance-2020/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  exceller 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    Just came across a piece detailing the hypocrisy of old Bernie.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bern...

    He is an advocate of raising minimum wage to $15 but he is not paying his staffers.

    He is a millionaire now, with three homes, the last one courtesy of the DNC to bow out against Clinton.

    All socialists/communists are known for this corrupt practice. They preach "dictatorship of the proletariat" But that does not apply to them.

    Communist bosses of the Soviets and Easter European countries had Swiss bank accounts and lived lavishly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 4 months, 2 weeks ago
      Ok, this borders on me defending Sanders, but it needs to be stated because it is actually a demonstration of the fallacy of the so-called "living wage".

      Bernie is in fact paying more than what they call a "living wage", and his response of "stop working 20 hours of overtime" is indeed the correct one. I'll explain.

      First, the "living wage" of $15/hour comes out to be $31,200/year assuming no vacations. The Sanders campaign is paying these useful idiots a salary of $36,000/year. Their base argument is that $31.2k/year is a "living wage" - the "minimum" being bore "deserves" - regardless of the job.

      Thus, Sanders' campaign is in fact consistent with that argument. The "problem" here, however, is different. First, it exposes that this "minimum/living wage" level is arbitrary and bogus - they don't even believe it. Frankly, they probably don't even understand their own assertion.

      Next, look at what the staff is claiming: they can't feed themselves. On 3k/month. I fed a family of four on less than that, so I smell a different problem here. At any rate, a 3k salary is flat, working more hours doesn't mean that you aren't making 3k/month anymore. As such it doesn't change the affordability of your groceries. Thus they are simultaneously claiming both that 31.2k/year is a "living wage" and that 36k/year is not a "living wage".

      The "it is less per hour" argument is true, but invalid. The price you pay for a turkey is the same regardless of how many hours you worked for it. However, this argument they make also exposes one of the many problems with their fascist and socialist ideas. To get their proposed wage, they are having to work more. Their proposed minimum wage devalued their work. It happens under all such systems, and the minimum wage is no different. It was pushed initially (and successfully) in the Jim Crowe era as a means to specifically price the newly freed blacks out of the market.

      Now, about Sanders' response. One of the other lame claims the left makes is that we should be working fewer hours to be happy. So, working fewer hours without losing pay would be consistent with that. Now one could indeed argue that this means he has to hire more people to get that same amount of work done. To an extent that is true (someone working 60h/week is less productive than two people working 30h/week - added net productivity for a person is a case of rapidly diminishing returns. Enough so that at 60/week you're more likely to get less net work done than at 40h ). This would be the better route anyway, as now you have more people earning that "living wage".

      This means that when they argue against cutting their hours down to only 40/week and hire others to fill in the gap, they are arguing for an "income gap" because it limits who is making that higher wage to themselves. If we assume worst case (for his both line) is that he has to hire 50% more people to do that work, he'd be out the same amount of money (approximately, it is complicated!) but 50% more people could be making that money.

      So in this case, Bernie is actually doing the right thing by almost any sane way of looking at it. He is paying competitive prices for labor - a price that is not only above minimum wage but above their proposed minimum wage. When it turns out they are working 60h/week, the response is "stop doing that, only work 40h per week". Let us just assume for sake of the argument I make, say, 100k/year on a salary, and I work 40 hours per week. Can I go to my boss and say "you know what, I decided I needed more money so I voluntarily and without permission increased my work time to 60h/week, so you need to pay me 150k"? Only if I want to get laughed at and possibly let go. I have no right nor reasonable expectation to more money. The best I can hope for is a laughing "yeah right, stop doing that".

      This is correct both on their own terms of leisure time, but from a business perspective it is right for the organization due to the waste of productivity someone has at 60h/week. If it means more people need hired and he thus would incur the same cost, then at least more people are making a higher wage - which is good for them. It is also good for the organization because it has a better measure of how much work they actually need done and are doing.

      Thus, this is one of the rare times I have to say Bernie is right, based on the available information.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 months, 2 weeks ago
        The unknown here is what out of pocket expenses the campaign workers are having to put in. If they're working in high cost of living areas, then they really aren't being paid enough to make a living. If they do a lot of travel and aren't getting reimbursed, then they aren't making enough. Hiring part time labor isn't the same as getting the regulars to put in overtime, as there are state mandated payments for disability, even for part timers, so the net cost is higher. Part of the complaint is that Sanders is the one putting staffers under pressure to work overtime, rather than them choosing to do so.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 4 months, 1 week ago
          That depends. So far as I’ve been able to determine, these are a group of field staffers, not the ones running the campaign. Given the situation and personal experience with campaigns, it is more likely them choosing to do the extra hours.

          They’re unionized and the union had been in the negotiation process with the campaign. The federal complaint that was filed we have to be wary of. For this situation the complainant doesn’t have to be someone in the campaign, as anyone can file this kind of complaint.

          From what little we know of the federal complaint, it alleges nothing about wages or salaries but some sort of retaliation for doing something. It doesn’t allege any criminal or civil violations outside of “retaliation”, which is a bit suspect.

          In my experience campaign workers, especially ones young and filled with zeal, are hard to constrain in what they say let alone go much they do. While typically much of these roles were historically volunteer filled, the campaign finance laws’ appetite for encroachment has been pushing them toward paid just to keep a handle on the official paperwork.

          Technically speaking these days if you volunteer for a candidate that is supposed to be have a cost imputed and you and they are supposed to file campaign finance reports to account for it. If you have other candidates paying, the FEC will use the “competitive” wage declared as standard.

          Legally a person could run into serious limits by volunteering that much time.

          The media on both sides has been refusing to report the details in party because it is more fun to call him a hypocrite, and in party because it is a small number of people who aren’t giving out much in the way of details - corroborative or otherwise.

          As far a Sanders putting pressure, I doubt he has much of a hand at all in the operation of these field offices and their staffing.

          Where he has been a hypocrite, however, is in lamenting that these people didn’t keep it within the organization; specifically the union process. This is hypocritical because he argues and pushes for the government to have more and more command over these things. But when he and the union make a deal he proclaims it “how democracy at work should work”.

          I doubt the union is letting these people pay their own expenses. I’d prefer to know the details on that but suspect we will certainly not.

          I wasn’t assuming he would be hiring part timers for these theoretical added employees, hence pricing them at the same.

          Even if they are working in high CoL areas, thematic only reinforces the fact that a national minimum wage is at once insufficient and overpriced. It doesn’t even stop at the minimum wage level, either.

          If I wanted to move to NYC (shoot me first) and keep my relatively modest lifestyle I would have to earn more than double what I make today - and after decades of experience I am not exactly cheap. That so many can’t see this matters enough to utterly sink the notion of a national “living wage” still boggles the mind.

          Edit: I hate autocorrect.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo