Bloomberg equates, "Living Wage," to Communism, Paid Sick Leave "Godawful"

[HorusRa2 5,005]

On Wednesday night, City Council speaker Christine Quinn announced that negotiations were finally complete on a living wage bill that would require some recipients of large economic development subsidies to pay their employees at least $10 an hour.

Quinn calls it "the most impactful living-wage law in the United States," but experts say it will actually impact about 500 workers a year.

Even so, today, Bloomberg compared the legislation to communism and said he would veto the bill and if the veto is overridden, his administration will file a lawsuit.

"It's interesting if you think about it," said the mayor. "The last time we really had a big managed economy was the USSR and that didn't work out so well."

"It would be great if all jobs in the city paid a lot of money and had great benefits for the workers. Not good for the employers. But if you force that you will just drive businesses out of the city."

By way of example, Bloomberg pointed to Fresh Direct, which, after threatening to relocate to New Jersey, won $127.8 million in New York City and state tax and cash subsidies to remain here.

"And we were lucky that Fresh Direct decided to stay here," said the mayor. "But, I don't know if it's true, but there's certainly stories that everybody agreed that the city council said, 'We won't pass the bill until you move in and we'll only make it prospective.' But if it was gonna to keep Fresh Direct out, it's gonna keep other people out. You just cannot force employers to pay a rate that isn't sustainable in their business. And it's not the government's business to do this."

Bloomberg went on to call a separate bill that would require companies of a certain size to give their employees paid sick leave (which isn't going anywhere because Quinn doesn't support it) "a godawful law," and then returned to the topic at hand.

The final living-wage bill has carve-outs for small businesses, nonprofits, and a portion of the Hudson Yards. But Bloomberg is not impressed.

"No matter how much you try to carve out certain industries and certain locations and certain size businesses, you're gonna hurt somebody ... I will veto any bill."

And if the veto is overridden, the mayor said, "we certainly will go to court and sue. Whether we win or not, you never know."

 

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2012/04/living-wage-reminds-bloomberg-of-soviet-communism-he-says-hell-stop-it-in-court-if-he-has-to-000000

 

 

[Economy 52,844]

Minimum wage based on productivity gains and inflation should have gone up to a solid $15/h to $16/h bare minimum

 

Look at this chart

 

[Matangi 3,050]

again, why the **** is an authoritarian republican oligarch running in the democratic party in 2020??

[NFRatwell 23,290]

15 minutes ago, Matangi said:

again, why the **** is an authoritarian republican oligarch running in the democratic party in 2020??

Because the Republican Party is now the Trump Party lol 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,563]

16 minutes ago, Matangi said:

again, why the **** is an authoritarian republican oligarch running in the democratic party in 2020??

bc he’s rich. he’s only a democrat in name... but in this case he’s to the far right 🤢🤢

[HorusRa2 5,005]

17 minutes ago, Economy said:

Minimum wage based on productivity gains and inflation should have gone up to a solid $15/h to $16/h bare minimum

 

Look at this chart

 

 

I came across a similar tweet/graph earlier today. 

[Economy 52,844]

3 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

 

I came across a similar tweet/graph earlier today. 

I want to point out a distinction tho. When it comes to wealth a lot of it or networth with stuff like stocks for the wealthy

 

and because the trend has been for Interest rates to drop over the last 30 years stock trading multiples keep going higher

 

Now that rates are virtually at 0 and can't drop much more and assets have a limited point to inflate from this point I don't think the wealth from wealthy will keep exploding at the same rate going forward as it has over the last few decades

 

Even so that side point aside, the stagnant wages that are not rewarding workers for their increased output remains very unfair and a big issue for every average Jo

 

Some higher taxes on wealthy to pay for a few investment programs fine... But the fundamental big issue with wealth inequality is people are not being payed fairly...

 

That's why I'm such a strong proponent of higher minimum wages (within reason).

 

Unlike social programs (which I support having to a reasonable level) ppl have to depend on or that only benefit specific ppl. Higher wages single handedly reduce poverty across the board for a lot of people without the government even having to run anything

 

[Economy 52,844]

Oh and to add to my comment above... That difference between the gap in real income earnings between rich and poor (which is indeed widening) and the gap in overall wealth factoring assets is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of relying on a wealth tax long term as a major revenue source

 

It's important to remember the wealth in assets like real estate and stocks does not actually exist in cash. A typical companies stock having a trading multiple of 15 means for every $10 of real earnings the stock is worth $150

 

Some of that wealth value is actually imaginary and doesn't truly exist with cash to back it all up

 

The reality is whatever billionaires have in wealth net worth wise cannot actually be all taxed because they moment the have to start selling and liquidating assets to come up with the cash to pay the networth tax the assets fall in value at a faster pace than the real cash taken out

 

These are technicalities expert economists point out but politicians often overlook

 

They way Bernie Sanders talks about Billionaire wealth makes me wonder if he understands most of the wealth does not actually fundamentally exist (hence why a quick stock market crash can literally oblaterate half of networth in the blink of an eye)

 

Most experts don't think his net worth tax will generate even close to what he thinks it will and I think I see many reasons why including this reason I been talking about

 

I do think it can still be a good idea in terms of a quick cash grab for Government to invest in useful things...

 

But I also think we need to understand fundamentally from which sources the wealth gap is growing from to understand the limits of policies too

 

@HorusRa2 I dunno if I made any sense the way I explained this I know I always write an essay

[HorusRa2 5,005]

18 minutes ago, Economy said:

Oh and to add to my comment above... That difference between the gap in real income earnings between rich and poor (which is indeed widening) and the gap in overall wealth factoring assets is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of relying on a wealth tax long term as a major revenue source

 

It's important to remember the wealth in assets like real estate and stocks does not actually exist in cash. A typical companies stock having a trading multiple of 15 means for every $10 of real earnings the stock is worth $150

 

Some of that wealth value is actually imaginary and doesn't truly exist with cash to back it all up

 

The reality is whatever billionaires have in wealth net worth wise cannot actually be all taxes because they moment they have to start selling assets to come up with the cash to pay the networth tax the assets fall in value at a faster pace than the real cash taken out

 

These are technicalities expert economists point out but politicians often overlook

 

They way Bernie Sanders talks about Billionaire wealth makes me wonder if he understands most of the wealth does not actually fundamentally exist (hence why a quick stock market crash can literally oblaterate half of networth in the blink of an eye)

 

Most experts don't think his net worth tax will generate even close to what he thinks it will and I think I see many reasons why including this reason I been talking about

 

I do think it can still be a good idea in terms of a quick cash grab for Government to invest in useful things...

 

But I also think we need to understand fundamentally from which sources the wealth gap is growing from to understand the limits of policies too

 

@HorusRa2 I dunno if I made any sense the way I explained this I know I always write an essay

Nah, I understand where you're coming from. I don't have an answer with regard to the wealth tax. I think it would be a bit naive if Bernie didn't understand that ( I doubt he doesn't). That said, I do agree that increasing wages is the most streamlined way to reduce poverty; however, I think that what's most important in conjunction to that is to offer healthcare in the form of single-payer and free college tuition/trade school to invest in our human resources and labor to build out a thriving and competitive economy. In the interim, I do think that by cancelling student loan debt, the effect would be more immediate and net, net impact the economy much more positively than leaving it as is or cancelling only some of the debt per Warren's plan. 

 

I think when our country invests in keeping our people healthy, providing them with a means to learn a marketable and valuable skill and providing a decent minimum threshold on wages that you can reduce the inequalities without necessarily redistributing majority of wealth from our millionaire and billionaire friends. 

 

The only thing that presents a problem in my view is climate change. The cost of acting in an aggressive way with regard to climate change is as real and costly as Bernie's proposal. But the reality is that if we decide that it's just 'too much' and too expensive and refuse to take action there, we're all going to pay the price when it becomes an existential threat to human life. And when it comes to that I just think that there needs to be a more broad based coalition and solution that has participation across the globe. Otherwise, all of this doesn't really matter as climate change is already here. 

[Economy 52,844]

9 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Nah, I understand where you're coming from. I don't have an answer with regard to the wealth tax. I think it would be a bit naive if Bernie didn't understand that ( I doubt he doesn't). That said, I do agree that increasing wages is the most streamlined way to reduce poverty; however, I think that what's most important in conjunction to that is to offer healthcare in the form of single-payer and free college tuition/trade school to invest in our human resources and labor to build out a thriving and competitive economy. In the interim, I do think that by cancelling student loan debt, the effect would be more immediate and net, net impact the economy much more positively than leaving it as is or cancelling only some of the debt per Warren's plan. 

 

I think when our country invests in keeping our people healthy, providing them with a means to learn a marketable and valuable skill and providing a decent minimum threshold on wages that you can reduce the inequalities without necessarily redistributing majority of wealth from our millionaire and billionaire friends. 

 

The only thing that presents a problem in my view is climate change. The cost of acting in an aggressive way with regard to climate change is as real and costly as Bernie's proposal. But the reality is that if we decide that it's just 'too much' and too expensive and refuse to take action there, we're all going to pay the price when it becomes an existential threat to human life. And when it comes to that I just think that there needs to be a more broad based coalition and solution that has participation across the globe. Otherwise, all of this doesn't really matter as climate change is already here. 

I dunno. The way he talks about it makes me wonder if he has. The fact that most experts don't think it will generate the level of revenue he believes it does also makes me wonder

 

However I'm not saying that I'm against it. Tax hikes on capital gains taxes or income taxes only increase taxes on new earnings but do nothing about the wealth already hoarded over the last few decades and I think it can be a useful tool to get some much needed funding for investments so if well implemented I'm in favour of it

 

All I'm saying tho the way it's being advertised, honestly I think the amount of money that can be taken out that way (especially longer term) is being severely overestimated and that could present a funding problem down the road

 

On wages and healthcare I agree with everything you said

 

I can also support student debt cancellation but only if they manage to reform tuition costs as well. I think the two need to come together... Because if that doesn't change but student debt is randomly forgiven, I feel like that could encourage future generations to get lax about student debt expecting a possible future round of forgiveness again and maybe not try as hard to minimize costs or work part time on the side to pay more of their tuition... So I think it's a good idea but Post secondary needs to be reformed along with it. If not free at the very least much cheaper

 

As for climate change I also agree with u there. Costly or not we have to deal with it

 

I do have an issue tho when some politicians on the left downplay the cost and make it sound like it will have no economic impact tho... While I support the actions and the goals, sugar coating the truth for support still doesn't sit well with me regardless  

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

I dunno. The way he talks about it makes me wonder if he has. The fact that most experts don't think it will generate the level of revenue he believes it does also makes me wonder

 

However I'm not saying that I'm against it. Tax hikes on capital gains taxes or income taxes only increase taxes on new earnings but do nothing about the wealth already hoarded over the last few decades and I think it can be a useful tool to get some much needed funding for investments so if well implemented I'm in favour of it

 

All I'm saying tho the way it's being advertised, honestly I think the amount of money that can be taken out that way (especially longer term) is being severely overestimated and that could present a funding problem down the road

 

On wages and healthcare I agree with everything you said

 

I can also support student debt cancellation but only if they manage to reform tuition costs as well. I think the two need to come together... Because if that doesn't change but student debt is randomly forgiven, I feel like that could encourage future generations to get lax about student debt expecting a possible future round of forgiveness again and maybe not try as hard to minimize costs or work part time on the side to pay more of their tuition... So I think it's a good idea but Post secondary needs to be reformed along with it. If not free at the very least much cheaper

 

As for climate change I also agree with u there. Costly or not we have to deal with it

 

I do have an issue tho when some politicians on the left downplay the cost and make it sound like it will have no economic impact tho... While I support the actions and the goals, sugar coating the truth for support still doesn't sit well with me regardless  

 

I'm glad we can definitely agree on more than we are disagreeing. I definitely agree it's best for student debt cancellation and free college to be a package deal. I also could agree that there could be some costs associated with post-secondary in situations like (free for first bachelors, low cost or some cost less than it is today for second bachelors or even for advanced degrees like MBA or PHD). 

Last thing I'll say about the wealth tax is that we would really know more details on how Bernie looked at it philosophically if the moderators at the debates could ask questions other than, "how are you going to pay for medicare for all," when they ask the question each and every debate and a 30 minute conversation happens that we've all seen before. 

[Economy 52,844]

1 minute ago, HorusRa2 said:

I'm glad we can definitely agree on more than we are disagreeing. I definitely agree it's best for student debt cancellation and free college to be a package deal. I also could agree that there could be some costs associated with post-secondary in situations like (free for first bachelors, low cost or some cost less than it is today for second bachelors or even for advanced degrees like MBA or PHD). 

Last thing I'll say about the wealth tax is that we would really know more details on how Bernie looked at it philosophically if the moderators at the debates could ask questions other than, "how are you going to pay for medicare for all," when they ask the question each and every debate and a 30 minute conversation happens that we've all seen before. 

Yeah on the wealth tax is be curious to know a lot more details on his line of reasoning because while I don't think it's a bad idea per say, I also don't think long term it will consistly yield large amounts of money as that taxable base shrinks (and likely at a rapid pace for the mathematical reasons I explained)

 

There might be longer term plans after the initial years he hasn't had a chance to elaborate on and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. But id like to know

 

And yeah a package deal cuz I just think student debt forgiveness alone without reforms on education costs later on could result in debt going up even faster of some ppl start expecting that student debt forgiveness could happen again that's why I don't think one should happen without the other

 

Also maybe an unpopular opinion here but I think it could be a good idea for a small fraction of cost to still be payed by students. Say 90% covered by Government and 10% by the students as a tuition fee

 

And the reason I support that idea is because when something is completely free it tends to be more taken for granted. You could have students take a course "just to try it out" without knowing if they are gonna commit or not... If a lot of students started doing that and dropped out that would start to raise the cost of Post Secondary on tax payers without increasing graduations

 

A small tuition would still be much more affordable (some wouldn't even have to take on any student debt) but still force students to think about it they are gonna be serious about a course or not

 

I'm talking a small tuition like no more than $500 or $600 a semester let's say. Just for the sake of reducing wasted spots on students that may not even be that serious about their course.

 

And if someone turned out to hate it and quit because the tuition is small no one would be indebted for life for $500 for a semester or $1000 for 2 semesters but it would force ppl to at least think about it more

[HorusRa2 5,005]

32 minutes ago, Economy said:

Yeah on the wealth tax is be curious to know a lot more details on his line of reasoning because while I don't think it's a bad idea per say, I also don't think long term it will consistly yield large amounts of money as that taxable base shrinks (and likely at a rapid pace for the mathematical reasons I explained)

 

There might be longer term plans after the initial years he hasn't had a chance to elaborate on and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. But id like to know

 

And yeah a package deal cuz I just think student debt forgiveness alone without reforms on education costs later on could result in debt going up even faster of some ppl start expecting that student debt forgiveness could happen again that's why I don't think one should happen without the other

 

Also maybe an unpopular opinion here but I think it could be a good idea for a small fraction of cost to still be payed by students. Say 90% covered by Government and 10% by the students as a tuition fee

 

And the reason I support that idea is because when something is completely free it tends to be more taken for granted. You could have students take a course "just to try it out" without knowing if they are gonna commit or not... If a lot of students started doing that and dropped out that would start to raise the cost of Post Secondary on tax payers without increasing graduations

 

A small tuition would still be much more affordable (some wouldn't even have to take on any student debt) but still force students to think about it they are gonna be serious about a course or not

 

I'm talking a small tuition like no more than $500 or $600 a semester let's say. Just for the sake of reducing wasted spots on students that may not even be that serious about their course.

 

And if someone turned out to hate it and quit because the tuition is small no one would be indebted for life for $500 for a semester or $1000 for 2 semesters but it would force ppl to at least think about it more

Totally agree. It would put us back into a space where the boomer class was able to work part time to pay for schooling if their parents couldn’t afford it. It still puts some degree of personal responsibility on the table. 

[Economy 52,844]

Just now, HorusRa2 said:

Totally agree. It would put us back into a space where the boomer class was able to work part time to pay for schooling if their parents couldn’t afford it. It still puts some degree of personal responsibility on the table. 

Yup basically this

 

But would still be affordable and accessible for everyone

[littlepotter 76,610]

It just boggles my mind that on a lady ****ing gaga site people are having these serious debates about economy  and i mean this in the best way possible. MadonnaBoomation could never