From a new report from Economic Policy Institute (EPI): http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/06/16/few-states-match-mass-income-inequality/wMIQkxtzUlwP4ZS4SN0khP/story.html?event=event25
* Top earners (1%) in MA make about 30 times as much as the bottom 99% – that’s higher than 44 other states.
* From 2009 to 2013 (latest data available), top-earning households (1%) claimed 83 cents of every new dollar created by the economy.
Groups like Raise Up have been doing great work on this issue, and are making real progress. I’m working with a group called FairShot.com that is helping in this effort. But more work needs to be done.
We need our elected leaders to stand up and make this a priority. This is not just an issue for Governor Baker. We have strong Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. We need to hold them accountable, and make sure this is an urgent – repeat urgent – focus going forward.
History shows that income inequality is not inevitable. We significantly lowered the level of inequality in the middle of the 20th century, with a smart mix of progressive policies. With the right political will, we could do so again and Massachusetts could lead the way for the nation.
But for now, Massachusetts remains near the historic high-water mark of inequality, according to the EPI report – which shows that we are roughly “as unequal as we were at the height of the roaring twenties, before the fall into the great depression.”
That has to change.
If you took the income from the top 1% of earners and redistributed to rest of the top 10% you would greatly reduce the inequality metric while doing absolutely nothing to address the actual problems people at lower income levels face.
We should always expect states like MA to have high income inequality because we have a much higher proportion of high-paying jobs requiring advanced degrees or specialized knowledge, training or expertise. The fact that these jobs exist here should have nothing to do with how much people get paid to work in fast food restaurants. However, the success of our economy and the prevalence of high-wage workers does dramatically drive costs up of housing in particular.
Yes, we should reduce income inequality, but rather than focus on that, lets instead focus on metrics that measure what really matters to people who are having a tough time: cost and access to affordable housing, transportation, healthcare, food, education, etc.
but historically, MA has had much lower levels of income inequality than it does now – which, according to the report, is near historic high levels.
I agree on focusing on metrics that matter to people – affordable housing, affordable and quality education, paid family leave, etc – those issues are critically important.
But the high levels of income inequality right now do matter, and provide a helpful metric to focus efforts on the issues you raise and others, and to help generate the political will at the grassroots to drive elected officials to make these issues a priority.
Historically, MA has had much lower levels of people working in specialized highly-skilled industries. The explosion of biotech, medical technology, software and electronic industries means there are way more highly educated and highly paid people in Boston than ever before. That is not in itself a bad thing. In fact it is a very good thing. And like I said, lower income inequality doesn’t necessarily make things better for people on the bottom. If you can get a handful of multi-millionaires to move out the state, then inequality will go down, but it won’t do anyone any good.
I believe that focusing on the income difference between the top and bottom distracts people from what the real issues are.
You are right, getting rid of the income inequality does not help the people on the bottom… but it does help getting the 95% on the bottom riled up and willing to vote for the millionaires tax.
… income inequality has a direct bearing on, at least, affordable housing as well as healthcare and the case can be made for education (when funded by property taxes) as, at least, second order (education as a function of property taxes which are themselves a function of income).
The present attempts to alleviate the problem rest upon the assumption that income inequality wouldn’t matter if the lower income was bounded, that is to say, if it wouldn’t be allowed to sink below a certain point and even buoyed when necessary. There’s a great deal of ‘inequality’ between millionaires and billionaires, the thinking might go, but nobody gets hurt if the millionaires are prevented from sinking below that point… no matter the amount the billionaires have. This makes sense only up to a certain point: the upper bound of the inequality sets the maximum bid price in the marketplace… So at some point, the billionaires can bid the prices up to the point that even millionaires are priced out. This is clearly seen in the art market: a Picasso would not sell for hundreds of millions of dollars if the inequality between the lowest bidder and the highest bidder were not extreme. This is not ‘purchasing power’ which is the power of the currency (per unit) to purchase, that’s a different economic concept, but it is analog of power — or perhaps better to say ‘balance’ — in the marketplace.
Many will, no doubt, dismiss the art market analogy as frivolous, since very few non-wealthy people are at all even involved in it, but that just underlines the point. The problem is less clear, but more impactful, in housing. A billionaire who undertakes to gentrify a city block, or even an entire neighborhood, can cast ripples farther and wider than a less profligate developer might… And, no, I don’t know of any billionaires attempting to do that, I just am trying to illustrate the point.
So I don’t think you can separate the issues of affordable housing and healthcare and what-not from that of inequality.
Why don’t we have an honest and open discussion about how much anyone working in the commonwealth full time for a year ought to be paid by their employer?
I say it ought to be enough for that person to afford housing, transportation, food, medical, clothing, entertainment, and enough left over to save for a rainy day as well as retirement.
Anything less is barbaric.
Did you see the article about this asshole buying the most expensive condo in Boston?
I hope that place has all sorts of plumbing and electrical problems. :/
…with someone who can afford to purchase such a place doing so. What am I missing? (If it’s in Norfolk County, it’s not in Boston, BTW.)
The condo is in Boston.
There is a real problem with wealthy foreign nationals buying so-called luxury property as an investment and leaving it vacant for most of the year. It drives up housing prices without actually housing anyone. The NY Times had a big piece on how this was becoming a problem in Manhattan. If I have time, I’ll see if I can dig it up.
I’m not trying to be difficult, but I was pretty sure the entirety of the City of Boston was located within Suffolk County (which explains the Brookline exclave of Norfolk).
If the property is worth so much, isn’t that good news for the community since it means higher property taxes and more money for municipal services? Sounds like this person is helping to pay for schools, library, public safety, etc. while reaping no benefit if he does not live there.
The Condo is in Boston.
The House on the Island is in Cohasset Harbor.
Doubleman mentioned a condo in Boston, then quoted at length about Norfolk County, which I interpreted as a condo on this island, though I mostly wondered whether he was using “Boston” loosely as in anything inside 128.
It’s got very little to do with the condo. It’s about that asshole making billions on distressed properties and then using loopholes to evade taxes and renouncing his freaking US citizenship to make that tax evasion stick. He seems to be as good an example of the problems of US capitalism and the failings of our tax code. I think it’s probably a safe assumption that his company’s operations in the US engage in some creative accounting and pay as little as possible in taxes as well.
I probably should have bolded the quote like this:
Regarding the property I assume he would still have to pay tax based on the location of said property.
We need to look at laws that make citizenship at all an issue. If you make money or own property in a given jurisdiction you should have to pay the appropriate taxes to that jurisdiction. You country of citizenship should have nothing to do with it.
Thanks for the clarification, though.
Yeah, he still has to pay property taxes. For Cohasset, however, he might be able to sway local decisions on tax increases. The 120-day rule for primary residency is a farce. There’s no way to effectively measure that.
Yes, the laws about citizenship and taxes, for individuals and more importantly corporations, is problematic. I don’t know much about the mechanics, but it seems like ending tax haven status could be something easily negotiated for if the US wanted to during various trade agreements – especially with Caribbean and central American nations.
Grayken and the like have far too much access and power to allow things like that to happen, though.
…for how much of a year he lives there or whether it is his primary residence? Seems to me that property has a certain value, and remains within the town, year round, whether or not anybody actually resides there.
is the 120 day metric isn’t about property taxes to the municipality, it’s about taxes to Uncle Sam.
“using loopholes to evade taxes”. Assuming by “loopholes” you mean legal codified tax regulations, one cannot evade taxes by taking deductions and credits. I take every deduction I am entitled to take legally, I assume you do to. Stop blaming law abiding citizens and place your anger on those who write and pass the legislation. Calling this man an “asshole” for behaving the same way everyone else does is juvenile.
who rescinded their citizenship to pay less tax?
Maybe where you live, but where I live nobody is so greedy and so unpatriotic that they’d rather pay less tax than be a citizen of their homeland.
But I think the distinction is that evasion is a crime. If this guy is a tax evader, then why not just prosecute him? It sounds, rather, that the whole citizenship thing is perfectly legal, even if objectionable.
Complaints about evasion go to the FBI; complaints about loopholes go to Congress.
I’m sure a man like this gets a lot more than the standard maximum deductions available to most people (through various other mechanisms, like his Bermuda holding companies), but more importantly, yes, this guy is an asshole for renouncing his US citizenship just to avoid taxes. Not many people I know have renounced their citizenship for tax purposes. Do you know many of those people?
Moreover, he’s made his billions working in the distressed property market. Here’s a nice piece about his company.
But yeah, he acts just like everyone else.
You stated he evaded taxes. Tax evasion is a crime, therefore he must be a criminal. That is incorrect. He used “loopholes” to AVOID taxes, which is completely legal. I’m sure I’ll be accused of pedantry but in this case the choice of words matter as one describes criminal behavior and one describes legitimate behavior.
And while I don’t know anyone who has given up their citizenship to avoid taxation, I DO know someone who moved from one community to another to lower his property tax bill.
I am that person. Does that make me an asshole?
And made legal by legislators, governors, and presidents who sign things into law, the same legislators, governors, and presidents who, as it turns out need lots of money to run campaigns (if they lack a populist message) and so, they turn to Wall Street and the .1% (the money MUST come from somewhere) and so it goes.
No, it does not make one an asshole to try and lower ones tax rate. It does, however, make one a miserable,selfish, and dangerous asshole to use ones money to bribe law makers to enable loopholes that allows one to horde ones fortune in the face of suffering of others in ones community.
I don’t want to get into a debate about the words, but I did not accuse him of the crime of tax evasion. Evade and avoid are largely interchangeable words. I could have been more clear, but was not accusing him of a crime. I have no doubt that he has hired the best tax lawyers in the world to make sure his activities, however unsavory and wrong and selfish, do not fall across the line into illegal activity. Grayken’s actions are very far from “legitimate” in my book, they are extreme, selfish, and not even close to the normal modes of lowering one’s tax burdens.
When you moved communities, did you create a structure to get most of the benefits of one community while not contributing to that community your fair share and do you also make a living by doing things like buying mortgages after the mortgage crisis and aggressively dealing with owners resulting in huge numbers of foreclosures for middle class families? Because if you did, then yeah, you’d be an asshole.
Not in the legal sense. People are not charged with the crime of tax avoidance, they ARE charged with the crime of tax evasion.
When you use terms like “fair share” I cannot respond; that is a completely subjective assessment. In my mind I always pay my “fair share” because I always pay what I am legally obligated to pay and I’m sure you do too.
When describing the criminal act, usually it is referred to as “committing tax evasion” not “evading taxes.” One gets charged with “tax evasion” not “evading taxes.” Use of the verb is not the common way to refer to the crime. All of that is irrelevant since you seem to think his renouncing US citizenship to avoid taxes is fine.
You wrote that he evaded taxes.
I responded that if true he would be a criminal and thus he more likely avoided them.
I made no judgement about his morality.
a market failure without a corresponding regulatory response. That more speaks to the issue that the rich get much more of a hand in writing such regulations.
I suppose any good populist worth her salt would think he was an asshole, like the others who scarf up investment property without occupying it, but I can’t make that leap. One problem, in the current economy, is that it’s difficult to get large returns on investments and so the wealthy have an incentive to buy all our land because, well, there isn’t a lot of it and so there will be a return on investment.
You said that a “problem” for wealthy people is getting a large return on investment. Excuse me, but if they are already wealthy, why must they be pampered with large returns on investments? What am I missing? I’d like a large return on my labor, but like most of us, that’s not happening and has not happened for years. Excuse me while I wipe the crocodile tears from my eyes, thinking about the wealthy who may not get a large enough return.
is this response even coherent? Perhaps, the writer comes from a communist country where a planned, highly regulated economy would prevent precisely such investments.
by Democrats who were not deeply infiltrated with WMD’s.
.
There seems to be a similar problem with investors plowing money into buying up Picassos and storing them in climate-controlled wear houses. Like urban acreage there are only so many Picasso canvasses.
This generally is a problem when the economy runs sluggish, I guess: investment dollars land in not so good, even anti-social places.
No. I meant warehouses
behind Fair Shot? MTA is part of Raise Up.
(I really don’t understand why our labor groups don’t take credit for the stuff we do).
Fair Shot was started by progressive donors who care about the issue of income inequality, and the group has hired full-time grassroots organizers to support an agenda to reduce income inequality. It is working on issues that improve equality in the workplace and lift the floor for working families – paid family leave, fair scheduling, affordable childcare, debt-free higher education, are part of its agenda.
I don’t understand who’s behind it. Jeff Reppucci graduated from Holy Cross two years ago. It’s not his money.
…but for reference I posted this diary almost five years ago.
Talking about income inequality without also talking about wealth inequality is distracting to the point of deceptive. Yes, income inequality in MA is a serious issue. Even more serious is WEALTH inequality.
INCOME is something that wage-slaves worry about. The handful of people who are destroying this state with their greed are people who are so WEALTHY that they don’t need income and will be unaffected by, for example, the proposed “millionaires” tax.
Once again, we end up with a topic that sets the rabble arguing with each other while not even MENTIONING the true source of the issue.
I’ve been screaming about wealth inequality for a while now. Last time I was told by one of the esteemed participants on BMG that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Democrats in general had nothing to do with it. I am asked, daily to stop pointing to the clear multiple connections of high ranking Democrats and Wall Street. No, pay no attention to that! It means nothing! Stop ruining their chances of election! Today I learned that our former governor, Deval Patrick, prior to the corner office, worked at Ameriquest, Ameriquest …yeah, you know, toxic mortgage derivatives and all that stuff that brought sent the economy to its knees, but the “government” bailed out the banks and we all got zero, nothing, told to work harder. After Ameriquest? Well, how about (Drum Roll Please) Bain Capital!
But hey, according to so many on BMG, the reason behind this wide and growing wealth disparity has nothing to do with the Democrats we elect….not a thing at all.
…that Deval Patrick worked for Ameriquest before he was elected? That was campaign fodder in 2006 and he took a bit of flak during his first year in office for making a call on their behalf IIRC.
I don’t think anybody has suggested that Dems have no WS connections. In fact I’ve been happy to stipulate specifically that HRC does have some because she was a Senator from NY, you know where WS constituents live and work. What I’ve objected to are arguments that Dems are just as bad as the GOP on these issues or just as corrupted politically, because the differences are real. Just look at voting records.
Nope, look at results. Look at 40+ years of stagnant wages for labor, with Democrats in the White House for many of those years. Look at Massachusetts, with sky high wealth disparity and Democrats in complete control.
The economy consistently does better under Dem Presidents than under Republicans. How do you like them apples?
I wonder how that compared to the great recession. In 2008 we lost a considerable amount of jobs, and a weak economy. We were gaining jobs but at the beginning you heard that they were contract or part time as the economy was not as steady. So income in those positions were low. is that normal and how are we doing from 2010 to 2012 to 2014 and so on is my question. I see some specific sectors that I’m more experienced with and I see people starting to move jobs for higher salaries like prior to 2008 again, and growth, prior people stayed and were happy they had a job. I’m not saying that this is the case everywhere but I do wonder how salaries and jobs opportunities are growing. My sense is with lower unemployment you would think there is some completion for talent and higher compensation. Haven’t found anything that looks at that specifically.
Many economist say the real unemployment rate is closer to 10%.
I know people that are working under the table, not getting the self-employed hours hours they need, or are underemployed.
I can also say that in the 1980’s, when the unemployment rate was similar, Massachusetts was on fire, with help wanted signs everywhere. DD was hiring people that couldn’t speak English.
Prior to the Great Recession, governments — especially Democratic governments — understood that government hiring was a major component of recovery from a recession. Sadly, Barack Obama embraced the failed “austerity” narrative of the right-wing and so there was little or no resumption of government hiring in the recovery from the Great Recession. In addition, federal funding of state programs was similarly restricted, so that states were slow in adding state government hiring. The result was that government hiring was VERY slow to recover. This, in turn, slowed the entire recovery.
Private job creation during the recovery from the Great Recession was more robust than typical. That robustness, and the recovery itself, was offset by the absence of government hiring.
The premise that the federal government needed to restrain federal spending is a foundation-stone of failed GOP dogma. The use of the “austerity” narrative was a big gun in the explicit GOP effort to destroy the administration of Barack Obama. We should not forget the endless GOP threats to shut down the government and/or destroy America’s ability to borrow money unless Mr. Obama capitulated to their extremist right-wing agenda. Mr. Obama chose to embrace rather than fight this failed GOP “austerity” narrative.
The anemic recovery from the Great Recession is the DIRECT consequence of explicit GOP policy during the Obama administration.
while I don’t think Obama embraced the austerity measures, he wanted to spend more and wanted to expand infrastructure projects. What do know is that what spending they had done with roads and bridges did work, but it wasn’t nearly enough. Tom as you highlighted those jobs would have had a downstream effect on businesses and job growth as well. But it was a time where we had an obstructionist House and Senate. It’s unfortunate that the correct path was known but wasn’t allowed to move forward.
The Great Depression is the only event in recent history to compare to the Great Recession. A striking difference between the responses of FDR and Barack Obama is the latter’s choice to NOT enact a CCC-style program (emphasis mine):
Freshman President Barack Obama, in my view, demonstrated his lack of public service experience in stark contrast to incoming President FDR. FDR had been a governor and understood what had to be done and why. Mr. Obama did not.
But then again, we’re just guessing, as even economists with specialized training are having trouble understanding what it going on in today’s economy.
I do like the consistency in your thinking though. A certain rigidity is necessary to keeping the faith. I tend to see things more in shades of gray, which leads me to question all approaches to some extent.
PS The federal deficit exploded during the Obama years (both in real terms and as a percent of GDP), so I’m not sure how you define “austerity.” I’m thinking objective dictionary definitions are probably not your cup of tea.
The deficit ballooned by approximately 1 TRillion dollars in 2009 exactly and precisely because the congress, at President Obama’s urging, passed an $800 Billion rescue package to mitigate the disastrous policies of the previous administrations (this after the congress at first rejected it…). Since that time the deficit has fallen by approximately 1 TRillion because we recouped all of the money spent on the rescue package and Obama made a deliberate decision to shrink government hiring. We’ve also had a series of farcical run-ins, fueled by Republican ardor, with the debt ceiling and sequesters that were, ostensibly, about requiring greater fiscal probity. As it is, the deficit as a percent of GDP is lower than in 2008.
You agree the deficit ballooned.
We’re still running a significant deficit, albeit it’s not as big as it was.
The federal government has been reducing hiring since the 80’s and going with the contractor/outsource model. That hasn’t changed.
It’s the spending money that’s significant, and that has hardly been restrained.
It’s still a larger percentage of GDP
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/recent_debt
The debt is larger. The deficit is smaller. The debt is the cumulative total of outstanding monies owed. The deficit is the difference between what we’ve bought and what we can pay for up front.
The debt is larger because because of multiple rounds of stimulus and Quantitative Easing which have scales of 10, 20 and 30 years on the bonds and other instruments… So a large part of the debt is own by the Federal Reserve. It is money we owe to ourselves.
FY 15 the Federal deficit is $439 billion.
It was previously over a trillion, and ran at that level for much of the Obama administration.
It’s great that it’s less, and maybe $439 billion is okay, but my point is that at no time during the Obama administration was there an austerity budget in place.
The current debt is about $19 trillion. The Fed holds about $2.5 trillion in US securities. 35% of US debt is held by non-domestic sources.
FYI Quantitative Easing was when the Fed bought non-government securities, which they had done previously. They have about $1.8 trillion of those.
I’m not going to respond anymore. You and Tom have made up your minds and aren’t going to let facts get in the way of an opinion.
YOU started out by citing DEFICIT numbers. When called on it, you switched to DEBT numbers, pretending they were (or not knowing they were not) one and the same thing.
Now, when called on that, I’m the one who has to do research…? And you’re taking your sulk and going home…. ?
Bye.
You are, in fact, now talking about federal debt rather then deficit.
Most federal debt is held by the very wealthy. The notion of “paying off” federal debt can only be accomplished by transferring wealth to those who hold that debt. The source of that wealth is reductions in government goods and services provided for everyone else.
The premise of “paying down the national debt” is, in fact, simply yet another wealth transfer from the 99% (or 99.9%) to the 1% (or 0.1%).
When you say that the federal deficit “exploded”, are you including the off-budget expenses of the 2003 Iraq invasion and it’s aftermath? I suspect not.
I’m eager to agree “objective dictionary definitions”. In my experience that’s one of the more effective ways to cut through partisan rhetoric and discover actual facts and data.
137 of them. Do you think we need more?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/military-bands-cut-back-house-224450
When you use word “explode”, you imply something that happened at a specific time. Your phrase was “exploded during the Obama years”. Citing a link about today’s military bonds is irrelevant to my point.
Federal spending exploded in 2003, because of “off-budget” military spending to fund Mr. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. Federal revenues collapsed (along with everything else) because of the catastrophically failed GOP economic policy pursued during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency — during most of those years, Mr. Bush had a GOP-controlled House and Senate.
The entire focus of the GOP during the administration of Barack Obama has been to block, oppose, thwart, and defeat EVERY proposal he has made, regardless of its content. That effort is entirely consistent with the purpose explicitly articulated by Mr. McConnell to destroy Barack Obama.
Your effort to shift the blame for today’s economy from the GOP to Barack Obama is, at best, incorrect. Your assertion about an “explosion during the Obama years” is more egregiously incorrect.
I wonder if investing $500M in our soldiers playing pipes is a better investment than blowing people up (our people or “their” people).
I see that I misread mg’s response, I thought he was talking about “bonds”. Still, military spending today is not the issue.
Finally, for what it’s worth, mg is citing figures of hundreds of billions (for the deficit) and tens of trillions (for national debt).
Ths “$500M” is $0.5B. That is 0.1% of the cited $439B federal deficit. It is 0.0026% of the cited $19T national debt.
This exchange is another example of the town meeting “streetlight gambit” writ large. The exchange is an irrelevant distraction.
Obama, as I recall, asked for too small a fiscal stimulus and Congress returned one that was smaller still. Instead of campaigning on the point that the fiscal stimulus was too small and that to get us out the recession more fiscal intervention was required, Obama talked about the stimulus “being the right size”. So while it was measurably better than not having a stimulus (economists were polled on this, for example), its smallness kept unemployment higher longer than necessary.
And yes, there was a lot of stupid concern about the deficit. Our previous troll harp on the deficit a lot.
By claiming that the stimulus was “just the right size”, Obama ended up getting the blame for the all too slow recovery. It also allowed Republicans to blame the stimulus.
ALTMAN, ROGER.
BERKOWITZ, HOWARD P.
BIDEN, JOE.
BRAINARD, LAEL.
BUFFETT, WARREN.
CLINTON, HILLARY.
CRAIG, GREGORY. (revolving door)
DONILON, THOMAS.
DUDLEY, WILLIAM C.
EFFRON, BLAIR W.
ELMENDORF, DOUGLAS.
EMANUEL, RAHM.
FARRELL, DIANA.
FRIEDMAN, STEPHEN.
FROMAN, Michael.
FUDGE, ANNE.
FURMAN, JASON.
GALLOGLY, MARK.
GEITHNER, TIMOTHY.
GENSLER, GARY.
GEPHARDT, RICHARD (aka “DICK”) A.
GREENSTONE, MICHAEL (revolving door to Hamilton Project)
HAMILTON PROJECT, THE
HORMATS, ROBERT.
KAGAN, ELENA.
KASHKARI, NEEL.
KORNBLUH, KAREN.
LEW, JACOB (AKA “JACK”) J.
LIDDY, EDWARD MICHAEL.
LIPTON, DAVID A.
MINDICH, ERIC
MURPHY, PHILLIP.
NIEDERAUER, DUNCAN.
OBAMA, BARACK H.
ORSZAG, PETER.
PATTERSON, MARK.
PERRY, RICHARD.
RATTNER, STEVE.
REISCHAUER, ROBERT D.
RIVLIN, ALICE.
connected to the Obama administration. Don’t blame Republicans. Anyone care to wager how many WMD’s will be appointed by the Clinton II Administration? That’s going to be my focus once she wins with my vote.
RUBIN, JAMES.
RUBIN, ROBERT.
SHAFRAN, STEVEN.
SPERLING, GENE.
STORCH, ADAM.
SUMMERS, LARRY.
THAIN, JOHN.
TYSON, LAURA D’ANDREA.
The economy does better under Dem Presidents? So, about this “economy”…..why did all the “better” about it only go to the top .1% under this last “recovery”?
life is not a bumper sticker, if you think policies and positions of Republicans are better vote for Trump.
that got us here. No, do not vote for Trump and do not vote for Clinton as she is and leave it at that.
Vote for Clinton…and then PUSH her to the left, PUSH her away from Wall Street. Do not accept the garbage that she will not be able to get things done because of “gridlock” and those rascally republicans…..know that the reasons are more directly related to who she and her ilk are funded by, and controlled by.
n/t
ability to engage other points of view.
off of his own version of the truth.
…aren’t being filled by the class that doesn’t need jobs.
a PROGRESSIVE!
He was also much better than his Democratic opposition.
Every election is a choice. Clinton was chosen by voters. Why don’t you go tell each of them how they’re wrong and you’re right? Be sure to dismiss their reasoning when you talk to them. And don’t forget to misrepresent what they say.
Yeah, read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky. And get back to me.
My goal in the next few years is to bring a few things to light that many Democrats (some who live in Somerville) want us to ignore.
Why haven’t you retracted your post about the press adoring Clinton?
That’s why
Look, you were the one who brought up a link claiming it proved your point. It didn’t.
Have you no honor?
He read Manufacturing Consent, though he specializes in manufacturing dissent.
I try so hard to be patience, but lose the obvious reference to SomervilleTom, a very progressive and sincere BMGer who I am sure hasn’t hurt you.
Not going to “knock it off” when I am attacked. My replies are in reaction to comments. The person you mention is not, in my estimation, a progressive as I do not view a willingness to be tied to Wall Street’s control as “progressive”….
I get that I fail your bizarre litmus test for being a progressive. Much of your commentary here fails to meet my standards of rationality and courtesy, never mind accuracy.
Whatever it is you were before you self-identified as a Democrat, your commentary here has become indistinguishable from the right-wing rubbish of the past three decades.
I, frankly, care about your estimation of me approximately as much as I care about that of any other Rush Limbaugh listener.
Your words, “I don’t know whether or that means Wall Street money, but the money MUST come from somewhere.”
A progressive who is willing to sell out to Wall Street. That’s what you’ve become. I’ll accept your disapproval of me on that note. I’d be embarrassed if you endorsed me.
17: “Anybody who disagrees with me is a sellout”
23: “If you disagree with me, you’re not a real whatever-it-is”
….in your comment and tell me you would stand by that as well. If not, why not?
Because nothing convinces you and because of the fundamental intellectual dishonesty elsewhere.
I see what you’re up to.
prefer your silence. At this point, who actually thinks you’re contributing anything? (Besides you, I mean).
…to a comment you find offensive, but you don’t have to constantly reopen the wound or pick a fight with every subsequent comment – move on!
…he has been a consistent advocate for the taxation of wealth, which would go a long way toward reducing inequality and would likely hit the WS types hardest.
reading a book!
I’ve read a couple myself. I’ve read Manufacturing Consent. It’s actually dated at this point. Have you read “What Liberal Media?” by Eric Alterman. That’s a little more up-to-date.
You preach to the converted and still think you’re holier than they are.
while you’re at the library
“rejection” while you’re commenting here.
That was very, very, very clever. Did you think that rejoinder up all by yourself?
Wow.
a book on rejoinders concerning the 1%.
Why haven’t you retracted your comment yet about the press “adoring Clinton” after posting a link to an article that proved the opposite?
does not disprove the rule. That’s why.
so far you’ve disproved your “rule” without acknowledging it demonstrating a level of intellectual dishonesty that disqualifies you from anyone ever believing you.
Not that you can prove the Media has been hard on the Clintons or that they have “scars” from the alleged “attacks” over the years. That’s just the martyr card that they play to cover their anti-labor agenda.
It proves precisely that.
However, your intellectual dishonesty in this regard is a sign that evidence won’t convince you. So actually, I don’t care whether you’re convince or not.
………………………………zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
sleep for a week or two, that would be great.
As you can read HERE.
…per Harvard
truth with the facts.
As I said in my original post:
“We need our elected leaders to stand up and make this a priority. This is not just an issue for Governor Baker. We have strong Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. We need to hold them accountable, and make sure this is an urgent – repeat urgent – focus going forward.”
During the state convention that was promoted (falsely) to be focused on wealth inequality, there was only one breakout session on the topic. It was lead by senator Dan Wolf who told us (as best as I can recall) that the only way to fix this is to send better legislators to the state house. My guess is that he knew what some of us are finding out (and what many of us refuse to acknowledge) is that a majority of our Democrats in office in Massachusetts do not care to address the problem in an honest way.
Agree with Senator Wolf on that point.
Nick Collins voted AGAINST indexing the minimum wage.
Your link shows that Collins voted with the Progressive Mass position 60% of the time (more like 70% if you don’t count the not-votings in the total). The highest score I saw from actual Republicans was 26%. He might not be a progressive hero, but he’s not a DINO either.
He also was the lead sponsor on that bill killing civilian police review authority in all but name, is anti-choice and was anti-LGBT. He’s also pretty unresponsive to his constituents from what they tell me. Rumor has it he will replace Linehan, who’s probably stepping down, since Boston councilors get a better salary and pension.
Let’s not forget another client of your firm, Boncore, a mushy middle Dem. It is easy to speak about broad policies with platitudes, but we are defined by who pays our salary.
By that logic defense attorneys all think their clients really are good guys. Sometimes that’s true and sometimes it isn’t.
An attorney can reasonably believe both in getting rid of crime and in protecting the constitutional rights of everyone, even the guilty. A political consultant cannot reasonably believe in progressive policies and also that conservative legislators are the best people to enact them.
Attorneys representing bad people, i.e. criminal defendants who are completely guilty, is an important part of keeping the justice system functioning. As an innocent person, your constitutional rights to a fair trial (and a fair sentence), to avoid unreasonable search and seizure, etc. are meaningless unless attorneys are willing to represent even the guilty. Especially since the guilty tend to lie, and we often can’t know for sure whether someone committed a crime without serious investigation–which an attorney can’t do for free or they’d have no time for paying business.
Political consultants are not needed to protect a state senator’s right to free and fair elections. They may help maximize performance (though that’s questionable), but you’ll get a democratic election and have free speech rights regardless. Unlike a criminal defendant, who is simply trying to protect their rights and get the best outcome they personally can under the circumstances, a politician is affirmatively trying to take power and change the law. And they’re usually pretty honest about at least the general contours of their agenda. As a consultant, you’re not just protecting the rights of an individual caught in the system; you’re affirmatively helping someone bring about changes to the system. By advocating for them, you are advocating for their agenda.
Unfortunately none of his primary opponents are stepping up to take him on in the regular primary or the general, even though they theoretically could do either. Claudia Sierra is a Latina activist from East Boston mounting a write in campaign for the fall, a tall order on the Dem side where he is running unopposed, but doable on our line or the Green or Republican lines. Unfortunately her signatures largely came from folks who weren’t registered to vote and she narrowly lost getting on the ballot in the special and again for the general. Hopefully her team can recognize the opportunity the other party lines provide, but she’s toast as a write in on the D ballot.
Obviously my bias and hope is that the UIP can be a vehicle for reform, but I’ve consistently said I want to see progressives get elected regardless of which party or how they challenge some of these incumbents. How would either solid progressive challengers in the primary or as unenrolled/UIP in the general go about doing this?
Especially when so many D or even ‘p’ districts on paper actually like their reps moderate or conservative? It’s the big question. I talked to a progressive legislator this week who confirmed the House is even worse than we think, and that it’s even harder than we imagine to reform. Would working within the friendlier Senate and retake the Corner Office be enough to overcome the House and it’s culture?
Here’s some of the people suffering the most because of inequality.
Thousands of H2-B visa guest workers, people who have no choice in where they work, are processing seafood for everyone else to eat. But if the bosses abuse them or steal their wages, they have no recourse, no choice to find another job the way many of us higher-wage people do.
I understand the fear those here illegally would have of being deported, and I advocate granting immunity to such people if they report employment abuses. However, I see no reason why those with work visas can’t avail themselves of whatever recourse the rest of us would.
That would seem to answer your question…
If they leave that employer, they get deported. Doesn’t matter if it’s because they were fired unjustly, or the company shut down. So unless your “recourse” would be to just go to your bed and cry, no they can’t avail themselves of whatever recourse the rest of us can.
Seems a no-brainer to me that if you report your employer for violations, there should be relief available, either from said employer or the government.
Your posture about this is perfectly reasonable and reflects my own at an earlier age.
I REALLY encourage you to find a way to spend more time working with and talking to the men and women affected by these matters. Talk to the H2-B workers that keep the hospitality business of the cape and islands alive. Talk to roofing and flooring workers (those who do the job, not those who hire them). Spend a morning at Foss Park talking to the men (and occasional women) who wait for hourly day-jobs there.
The reality of being an immigrant in today’s America — even here in Massachusetts — is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what “common sense” suggests it should be. Whistleblower protections are non-existent. It takes months or years for ANY sort of legal action to happen, far too long for the victims to wait.
I’m not sure you realize that these are jobs where the employer too often simply refuses to pay. Period. If the worker does ANYTHING except smile and keep working, the worker is FIRED. On the spot.
One of our frequent participants posted a comment just a few weeks ago dismissing the role of “the (largely) transient college population”. Our attitudes towards H2B workers are worse. If a four+ year commitment to participation in a foundation-stone of the Massachusetts economy is still dismissed as “transient”, how much attention do you think this participant pays to 19 year olds that are here for a summer?
This is an area where reality is VERY different from theory. I most strongly encourage you to inform your learning from academia with real first-hand exchanges with the victims of this kind of discrimination.
I would wonder why so many of the lift attendants were from other countries . It’s seemed odd that in a state like Vermont, they could not find suitable labor. Really? It was not as if every house I passed on the way to the slopes was a luxury villa. Clearly there were poor people, in need of income, living close by. My guess is that the resorts paid so little and treated their employees so harshly that no locals would put up with that crap, so the millionaires who owned the resorts worked with their moles in the government to get cheaper workers. One thing I recalled was that any event at the resort (Wedding or banquet) carried an automatic 20% gratuity charge that one would assume went to the servers and so forth. Well, one would assume that incorrectly. All the money went to the house.
to expose them to US culture. I also don’t think there are enough locals to supply all the needs of tourist destinations.
We have an example of this right here in Massachusetts: Six Flags New England. Several years ago they went heavy into the J-1 Visa program, and even put the kids up in a dormitory in Springfield and bused them to the park. Meanwhile Springfield’s youth unemployment rate is probably over 50%.
There are a few possibilities for why they did this, some innocent, some nefarious:
1) Six Flags season doesn’t match the area school system, so they had to bring in the outside help.
2) Six Flags patrons feel more comfortable when their park is staffed by white kids from eastern Europe rather than black and Puerto Rican kids from Springfield
3) The J-1 visa program is a way to pay below the minimum wage; employees are actually charged to participate in the program, and often pay entities related in some way to their employer for things like housing, food, transportation, which can be marked up in order to lower the total overall per-hour rate.
4) Springfield kids are worse employees than eastern European kids. They have no work ethic, etc. (we know that it can’t be related to communication skills because the eastern European workers are often not proficient in English).
5) Despite extreme poverty, Springfield kids don’t want to work at Six Flags for minimum wage.
6) Eastern European workers are easier to take advantage of than Springfield kids. There is some evidence to support this; in 2002, some Polish student workers in the program reported difficult working conditions including being forced to work without breaks.
7) Springfield kids can’t get to Six Flags reliably because they don’t have cars. Of course, this ignores the fact that Six Flags provided transportation from their park to the dormitory where their workers were housed in Springfield.
Canobie Lake Park, in Salem NH, closer to me, has many of these as well, though they also hire many local kids. I would guess that through experience they are unable to get enough kids locally. I bet it would be a tough sell to get them to try to go without the J-1’s. I know there were some stories from 2009 about farmers trying to hire locals to replace migrant workers. Most of the locals couldn’t last a day picking vegetables.
Have you ever talked to any of the young people working at Disney? Many of them are in foreign hotel management programs at colleges in their respective countries. They’re in paid internships for credit. I don’t know how it works exactly.
One thing I thought was interesting (over about 10-15 Disney visits in seven years, I went there for work) was the discrimination based on appearance. You’re an attractive female, you’re working out front as a reception person, hostess, etc. You’re not so attractive, you might get your college credit working as a maid.
There’s a lot of press on it. some of it driven by Trump’s comments on it.
Ski resorts there are apparently a big-time business for investment visas.
So it may be that mom and dad get investor visas for buying into the resort and then bring the kids in on work visas.
Seems odd, doesn’t it?
But that’s the law as it is now:
As soon as the seafood company decides a worker complains too much, they are shipped out, regardless of the validity of the complaints.
I thought I remembered on applications or W-4s I have filled out it asks whether you are a citizen OR eligible to work in the US. I assumed that meant eligibility to work was pre-established. That’s definitely how it SHOULD work IMO. It seems one who wishes to work in the US should be able to apply to, say, the Department of Labor for a general work visa good for a certain number of years, which would allow them to seek and accept employment for any position just like the rest of us.
…and serve the primary purpose of driving down labor costs for employers. An early example is the Bracero Program (1942 -1964):
Sound familiar?