In the little reading I did about Sanders (I don't need to do a lot because I will never vote for a self-declared socialist), I found his voting record.
He is wildly liberal by my standards - not particularly thoughtful and deliberative in what he says yes to. Based on his record, I think, economically and politically, the man is dangerous and short-sighted.
For instance, when the American voter needed jobs because of the recession we've been in since 2007, he voted three times against the XL Keystone Pipeline. That project would have created thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of jobs by its construction, its maintenance through all of the states through which it would run, and ancillary jobs in companies impacted by its existence.
There would have been the construction crews, the design firms, the local agencies with jurisdictional oversight. And that's just during construction. You can pretty well be sure that each segment of that line, perhaps as much as two or three hundred miles but probably no more, would have required a maintenance staff - probably three shifts, 24/7 to prevent against breakdown or failure. What about the pipe companies? The valve and fitting jobs that would have been created and would have been needed going forward? There would be pump companies, and lubricant manufacturers, repair services for the pipeline and the equipment used to service it. Good grief!
Yeah. He's really looking out for the best interests of the people. Yessiree bob, those votes had nothing to do with the environment. People are first and foremost in his consideration.
He voted against permitting the reconstruction of infrastructure - bridges, roadways, etc. - after a natural disaster to the original specifications without environmental review.
That one is jaw dropping if you stop and think about what that might mean. Let's follow that one logically through a hypothetical construct.
There's an earthquake. It's massive and damages the San Francisco Bay Bridge so badly it can't be used. Tens of thousands of people - commuters and business delivery drivers - cross that bridge every single day.
Instead of permitting the bridge to be re-built to the original specifications, following the same environmental standards as at the time of construction, it would require new environmental review.
That, the drafting of the documents explaining the project, why it's needed, what steps will be taken to prevent environmental harm, the public hearings and community meetings, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (one year process), Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (minimum one year process, often longer) and all the permitting, review, design revisions because of the changes required through the DEIR and EIR processes would cost tens of millions of dollars more. Worse, is that the key link between the East Bay and San Francisco would be closed for probably a decade, if it ever reopened, at all.
What impacts would that have on the environment? People wanting or needing to get to San Francisco would have to drive far around to get to where they need or want to be. Gasoline, air pollution, congestion, parking, everything the liberal left decries would be significantly impacted, in exactly the wrong way.
Let's take that bridge and move it anywhere in the country. How about New York? One of their bridges collapses, or the Lincoln Tunnel or... It's the same problem, no matter where you put it.
The man's thoughtless. He doesn't weigh and consider stuff like that - those are a few examples. There are others, but then this would go on forever, so I'll leave it there.
He also seems, a bit strangely, to have voted for Second Amendment legislation. He's not necessarily a card carrying member of the National Rifle Association, but he does appear to have a pretty solid record voting for gun rights.
When the Brady Bill came up in the Senate, he voted no.
When legislation came up that would allow the families of the Sandy Hook school shooting to sue the gun manufacturer, he voted no.
Now I don't pretend to know what was in his mind. Was he thinking broadly of the doors that would open, or was he genuinely protecting businesses that happen to manufacture firearms? I don't know, but thank God he voted no!
The insanity of that legislation, all emotion to the side, is staggering.
Let's say it had passed. The doors would have been opened and it would have probably bankrupted the companies that make firearms.
From there, it could well have allowed me to sue Toyota.
I was on the freeway a couple of years ago when I was slammed into by a Toyota pick-up truck. This was the result:
That used to be the trunk of my Ford Taurus sedan. After that, I was hauled off to the hospital in an ambulance, spent four hours in the ER so they could make sure I really wasn't injured, and then sent me home.
Had I been seriously injured by that Toyota, under the open-ended legislation proposed in response to Sandy Hook, I could have sued Toyota. Their car, in the hands of an idiot, caused me harm.
That's the logic the folks who proposed the Sandy Hook legislation followed.
In that mentality, if you or I play sports and someone does something stupid and you or I get injured, we don't sue the guy or gal that injured us. No! They get of Scot free to do the same again to someone else. We go after the company that makes the product that was used.
If it puts the company out of business, if dozens or hundreds or thousands of people directly or indirectly impacted by that business closing lose their jobs and health insurance, so?
It's a well-intended but remarkably stupid idea.
He also voted for a so-called "Minimum Wage Fairness Act" and a "Paycheck Fairness Act".
Something people do not seem to understand about minimum wage, is that it is the entry level wage. The wage people are paid when they first start working, before they have knowledge, experience and a background in their field. It is not fixed. It is not permanent. It is temporary. The equivalent of <0.1% of the employee's entire working life assuming they start when they're eighteen or twenty and work until they're sixty or so.
I'll explain what I mean if you follow me here, okay?
You own a business. It's not a huge, multi-national conglomerate. It's a small business making enough to support you and your family in some comfort. You're not driving a luxury car or living in a mansion. You simply get enough income to maintain a solid middle class lifestyle and send your kids to college, put something away for retirement.
In your business you have, let's say, nine employees. In your business you have a new position.
Some greenhorn, wet-behind-the-ears know-nothing reports for her/his first day of work. S/he has no knowledge of the business, of the job, or of anything. That is entry level. It is the one and only entry level position that person will ever hold. Even if they go to another company, even one in a completely different industry, they are no longer an 'entry level worker'. They have work experience, a track record they can put on a resume.
With even some college education - junior or community college qualifies - that person will almost certainly never earn a minimum wage, even assuming they never hold a job until they're nineteen or twenty years old. Employers pay for smart people, and smart people - proven with at least some success in meaningful college courses - don't start at rock-bottom minimum wage.
That is predominately the wage paid for teenage workers - those who are still living at home with the support of Mom and Dad, or Mom or Dad or whatever.
If you start a job in your twenties and you are only taking a minimum wage position, there is something seriously wrong with that picture. What did you do during all those learning years, the teenage years? Sit on your ass and play video games? Shit! In my opinion, if you wasted your time like that, you don't deserve a 'living' wage because you sure as shootin' haven't been 'living'.
So - there's this seventeen year old kid, living at home, anxious to earn some money so they can do whatever. To this point you, the employer, have already invested time, which equals money since the you had to advertise the position. Craig's list charges $75 per ad. The people you employ are screening the candidates and interviewing them, and checking their paperwork and references. Doing those things means they're not doing their usual work, unless you own a business large enough and stable enough to have an in-house HR department.
You've hired them, after spending hours of time in screenings and interviews. Now you're about to invest more time, which equals money, training them.
To offset the cost of training this brand new, wet-behind-the-ears greenhorn, you're paying them an entry level wage with the expectation, typically 90 days or six months, that there will be a performance review.
If s/he does well on the job during the training period, s/he will probably get a raise. Perhaps five percent. It's not huge, but it's more than minimum wage. Six months later, or maybe a year later, they'll get another review and, if they're still performing well, another raise.
If they're not cutting it, they might not get that increase, but that tells everybody this person needs to pay closer attention and work harder to meet the mark set by you, the boss.
If they don't want to try harder, or if the employee thinks they're doing everything right but the boss (you) is a jerk, the employee has a choice.
They can stay there, in that job, making at or near minimum wage, or they can start looking for something else, take their skills and knowledge they've acquired elsewhere. Because of the experience you, the employer, helped them acquire, they are now experienced to some greater or lesser degree. They are no longer green as grass and have some skills to take with them.
But you, the employer, does not want them to leave. You're probably still in the financial hole from the hiring and training process. You've made an investment in this and you want that person to stick around so you don't dig yourself deeper by doing the advertising / screening / interviewing / hiring / training cycle all over again.
So what's this 'financial hole'? It's not just the wage that's paid, folks. It's workman's compensation insurance premiums, payroll taxes: state disability, social security (yes, employers pay this too, for every single employee they have on the payroll), Medicare, state and federal unemployment taxes, along with the cost of managing the payroll system so that employee gets a paycheck.
Roughly 10% of every dollar paid out to the employee in wages is paid out of the employer's pocket to cover all of the various fees, assessments, taxes, levies, liens and all the rest of it. Never mind the overhead costs of lights and heat and cooling and water and rent and... Those are all extra.
Hiring and employing people is expensive. Hiring skilled people is slightly less so. The wages and assessments are higher, but the employer gets a bigger bang for their buck - meaning that the less skilled worker actually costs more to employ. Lower skilled workers require more intense training. Thus the lower wage paid that helps to offset the lack of experience, skill, knowledge.
Yet, if we take the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour, or $0.73 per hour in cost to the employer, and jump it to $15 as some jurisdictions have done, you add $1.50 per hour to that employee's wage, even though s/he has no knowledge, experience or skill in their job.
But they're hired, which means you're committed to training them. So you assign someone who makes, perhaps $18 per hour training someone making $15 per hour. That's $33 more per hour that you, as the employer, have to make up in goods sold or products produced. That $18 per hour employee is not being as efficient or productive as they normally are because their attention is divided. Plus you have to cover that rough 10% of taxes and fees for both employees, jumping that $33 per hour to $36.30 that needs to be made up.
Businesses are not charities. They cannot survive paying a "fair" wage or "Paycheck Fairness" nonsense.
Women take more time off than men. It's a fact. Why? Because we're the ones who get pregnant and need to see the doctor. We're the ones who get three weeks of leave, paid by the employer, and who need more time off for well-baby checks and kid sicknesses and all the rest of it.
The vast majority of fathers don't take the same amount of time off that mothers do. It's a simple fact.
It's not that women are less valuable in the workplace. It's just that, while we're raising our families, women are the ones who are primarily responsible for taking care of the kids. Which means we're not there taking care of our employer's business.
So that's where Bernie Sanders is an idiot. But at least he's sensible enough to know that allowing people to sue because someone uses a manufactured good to cause harm isn't smart.
Now, despite my politics and your thoughts and feelings on what I've said, I do hope you have a lovely day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
No comments:
Post a Comment