Minimum Wage Wars- The Motor City of Ruins

Welcome to Michigan.  The Great Lake State.  The Mitten State.  The State of the first American Ruins.  Yes, you heard correctly.  Within the state of Michigan, there is a very famous city known as Detroit.  The Motor City.  Once the third largest populated city in the US during the 1950's at about 1.8 million, the population decreased by more than 60% at around 680,000.  A decaying automotive industry that the city was founded on quickly caught up to it when the employment rates quickly plummeted, resulting in a large flight from the city to surrounding suburbs and other states.

Now what does this have to do with the minimum wage?  The better question is what does the minimum wage have to do with this?  The answer is this: the families that live off of the minimum wage the state is set at- a mere $7.40- is appalling.  The minimum wage hardly covers a household of one child and one adult, or two adults.  Adding on one child means the household is living below the poverty line.  The minimum wage even for someone living alone falls over a dollar short of a living wage.  In short, many of Detroit's residents live close to or below the poverty line.  And at an unemployment rate of 5.9%, Michigan is leaning toward the bottom of the list.

It would come as no surprise that over 1 million of the people living in Detroit during the ongoing decay period chose to leave in hopes of better standards of living.  Detroit in fact leads the country in population living in poverty, with 44% reporting such living conditions, half of which are under the age of 18.  In addition, African Americans make up more of the impoverished population in Detroit than all other ethnic groups combined.

 Hasn't Detroit suffered enough?  For now, this is D. Politopolous out.

Minimum Wage Wars- Lone Star Standing

Ah Texas.  Their state pride is like no other.  Many say that it is almost like a totally different country there (Which makes sense seeing as how they formerly were in history).  Texas being the largest continental state and second largest populated after California, they are quite the powerful state.

The largest red state in the Union, Texas boasts an enormous economy and history even before its introduction into the Union.  Its culture is rich and its money is large.  The Texas minimum wage rate is the federal standard of $7.25 per hour, therefore many of the statistics of living on this wage would be the same.  Texas has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the US at 4.3%.  That is better then both Washington and California, whom both have minimum wage rates at or above $9.00.  So what is the circumstance of the difference in unemployment between these three states?  Population?  Number of jobs available?  Losing jobs?

Many may attest this to a large number of migrant workers filing jobs that others will not take.  This theory is a bit flawed, as the number of migrant workers in Texas is half the size of California's at 375,000 against, yet California's unemployment rate is about 2.5% higher than Texas' with twice the population unemployed as well.  In addition, Texas's unemployment rate has been consistently under the national average since 2007.

More to come in the future.  Till then, D. Politopolous out.

Minimum Wage Wars- California Coasting?

When most people think of the West Coast, most people immediately think California.  They often neglect Oregon and Washington when this happens.  Well once again, California will be the focal point, this time on the Minimum Wage War.

With the largest population expanded over such a large area, California is a mixed bag unlike any other.  Many different views, many different standpoints.  California is just like any other state debate: "Minimum wage will help in this this if we raise it."  "Minimum wage will affect that if we raise it."  "How can we make people rich just by raising the wage?"  "It'll hurt the economy."  Unemployment will increase.  "Why has it not been kept up with for the past decade?"  All of the jabber is just ridiculous to hear sometimes.

To begin with, take a look at California's statistics.  Over the years since 2001, they have gradually increased the minimum wage a good step above federal standards.  During this period, they have shown to have decreased the unemployment at a pretty steady rate even with a slight fluctuation.  California has the second highest minimum wage of any state at $9.00 an hour, after Washington State at $9.47 an hour.  In contrast to this, California's large population attributes to its low rank among states in unemployment, as it is tied for 47th with Louisiana.

Suffice to say, for the state of California there has been good change in recent memory, but there is still much to be done.

Minimum Wage Wars- Washington Leads the Campaign

Let's move over to the Pacific Coast for a bit on the minimum wage battle.  Washington has been a very liberal state for a while now.

At the beginning of 2001, they became the first state to incorporate the CPI to annually adjust their minimum wage by inflation.  Seattle itself initiated a $15 minimum wage increase within its municipality over the span of 3-7 years. They became the second state after Colorado to legalize marijuana in all forms, intents and purposes.   All the while many naysayers believed that both of these acts would lead to Washington's economic downfall.  Well according to the statistics, the naysayers would be wrong.

Many politicians on the opposing side believe that increasing the minimum wage to such an unprecedented rate will lead to loss of jobs due to the inability for employers to pay their employees.  However, the statistics as we see them today shine a different light on this claim.  Since 2001 when Washington first implemented the inflation index in their minimum wage adjustment, there has been a steady decline in unemployment in the state of Washington outside of the brief recession period of 2008-2009.  The same can be said for the employment growth in the state.  Since 2001, there has been in increase in available jobs in Washington outside of the recession period as well.

It would seem that Washington has been doing something right all along in their progressive movements.  Agree?  Disagree?  Comment your thoughts, the more the merrier.  That is all I will present on this post, more to come in the future.  D. Politopolous out.

Minimum Wage Wars- Battle of Pennsylvania

Minimum wage has been a long running topic of dispute for years in the US.  Bills both state and federal have come in an attempt to remedy the issues regarding it, but unfortunately most never see the light of day.  In Pennsylvania, the struggle has been ongoing since 2007, with bill after bill being blocked from making it to the governor's desk.  But the supporters of a higher minimum wage certainly have not yet given up the fight.

In 2015, State representative Patty Kim, D-Dauphin, made announced her reintroduction of her legislation proposal, House Bill 250, to increase the Pennsylvania minimum wage to $10.10 over a two year period.  The plan would first increase the minimum wage to $9 and 180 days after the plan is passed and then to $10.10 after a year.

On the current wage Pennsylvania pays out, the average person working a 40 hour work week makes about $15,080 annually.  For a household of three, this is more then $4,000 below the poverty line of $19,790.  If we were to add in two weeks unpaid vacation, that number would decrease to $14,500, more than $5,000 below the poverty line.  Many of these households require assistance from government programs to make ends meet.

Should H.B 250 be passed, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would make a 40 hour work week worth $21,008, just over $1,000 above the poverty line for a house of three.  It is a small but reasonable stepping stone to the $15 desires of the middle-lower class constituents.  PA Governor Tom Wolf has openly stated that he fully supports Kim's plan.  President Obama is also a major support figure in this drive to increase minimum wage.

In short, the minimum wage increase advocacy is not short of supporters.  They simply need more supporters in Congress to pass legislation, which will be difficult in a majority Republican Congress.  The struggle continues.

That is all for this post.  Look out for the next one soon.  D. Politopolous out.

Curriculum v. Corrections-- Bonus Feature: Kids v. Classroom

Earlier, I covered the topic of prison costs against education costs.  I have returned to it to cover another topic related to it.

What are reasons that students may have a lack of interest in school?

There are many simple reasons and complicated reasons for this issue.  I will give my full opinion on this question.  Such factors could be:

-Struggling with social interaction- Having a hard time communicating with students, teachers, counselors can make things hard for them and give them unwanted stress.
-Depression- Possibly losing interest in school and many other things as well.
-Struggling academically in their studies- Finding difficulty in keeping up or doing well can stress them out demotivate them to continue.
-Learning disability- Unable to fully comprehend an aspect can also stress out students and demotivate.
-Peer pressure/Bullying- Fellow students making the school environment difficult for you to function in can lead to anxiety and not wanting to be in said environment.
-Family matters- Personal matters within the household can be stressing for the child.  Not meeting parental standards of excellence, no support from family, or family troubles can create weight for that child to bear.  That weight can carry into the classroom, creating a domino effect.
-Substance use and/or abuse- Possibly trying to cope with the trials and tribulations of life by using substances can tamper with the thought process.
-Significant others in their lives- There are times when relationships will cause students to turn their attention away from the book to their beau.  They may become the center of their life.
-A simple lack of interest in school- Some students simply do not go together with school.  It may just as easily not agree with them, and they just don't want to be there.

That is my take on this question.  Now notice how at least half of these aspects given are related to anxiety or stress.  You could conclude from this that the main reason some adolescents lack interest in schooling is stress and anxiety on them.  They may find it difficult to cope with the vicissitudes of schooling and thus want nothing to do with it.

Have a different view of why kids lack interest in the classroom?  I welcome any comments you may have, feedback, questions, the more the merrier.  Until the next time, this is D. Politopolous on recess.

Journey into the World of Conservative Media- Minimum Wage Debate

D. Politopolous here again, reporting to you on yet another journey into conservative media.  I took a look at segments regarding the minimum wage in America.  What I got was a lot of the same or similar reactions from conservative correspondents for the most part.

To begin with, I noticed that with nearly every video I have viewed, they speak on the minimum wage being raised from $7.25 to $9-10 dollars an hour and how it will lead to an increase in unemployment and a resultant collapse in the economy.  The same reaction is blowing this measure out of proportion by comparing raising the wage to $20, $50, several hundred, or even thousands of dollars.  This is shown to be false here, as if you take a look at the minimum wages of the individual states, the states with wages above the national standard show a decrease in the unemployment rate for teens specifically from 16-19.

-California at about $9 an hour showed a decrease in teen unemployment by over 7% from 2011-2014.  New Jersey at $8.38 showed a 7.5% decrease, and Washington State showed a 3% decrease at $9.47.  New York as well showed a near 4% decrease in teen unemployment at $8.75 an hour.
-Pennsylvania however, one of the states that remains at the national standard of $7.25, showed an increase in teen unemployment at near 4% from 2011-2014.  Alabama, also at $7.25, showed an increase of nearly 6% in unemployment.  Oklahoma showed an increase of about 2% at $7.25, and

Now this seems to make compelling arguments does it not?  However, one should look at all the numbers first before concluding.  When looking at the remaining 21 states still at the national standard, the unemployment rate for teens increased from 2011-2014 for only four of these states: Alabama, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.  Alaska saw no visible change at 0%.  The remaining 17 states saw some level of decrease, with rates ranging from below 1% to near 14%.  I find these findings to be inconclusive on this current matter, and thus I will look into it more on a future post.

Furthermore, one segment had raising the minimum wage to that standard will "magically" result in more prosperity among many Americans.  Washington State is a prime example of why this cannot be true.  The US still sets a minimum wage every few years manually, while Washington State pioneered increasing by inflation index.  Washington's minimum wage is higher than the national average and unemployment is lower than the national average, yet the still have a high population below the poverty line.  A wage of $9.47 is still a very low wage to try and survive off of, and many residents of Washington are still poor.  Therefore, a slight raising of the wage, contrary to conservative belief, is not likely to bring any sufficient level of prosperity to citizens.

Now here is a little something that I did not expect.  Bill O'Reilly of all people advocating for the raise of the minimum wage in this clip of a Fox News segment.  If Bill O'Reilly is even on the side of raising the minimum wage, then there must be a compelling argument here to do so.

That is all for this post, as it is getting quite lengthy.  I shall return again soon, as many questions here have yet to be answered and many aspects of this argument have yet to be covered.  Until then this is D. Politopolous on recess.

Journey into the World of Conservative Media- ISIS

D. Politopolous here, reporting to you once again.  Now any informed mind should understand that to argue any point to your maximum potential, one should take a look at both sides of the debate.  That being said, I decided to take a journey into a world I seldom crossover into, and that world is the realm of conservative media.  I searched several videos on the internet, and one of which I found on Youtube and decided to center around.

The first video I came across was of a Fox News Hannity segment, in which Fox News reporter Sean Hannity interviewed Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson on the issue of Islamic Extremists ISIS/ISIL and what should be done about their increase in momentum in the Middle East.

My first question regarding this interview is as follows:

What in the wacky world was going through Hannity's mind when he decided to consult a bible thumping redneck on foreign policy to begin with?  Why not consult someone who is actually well informed on the subject, like say a foreign policy expert or correspondent?  A religious bigot such as Robertson is not someone whose advice should be looked upon when speaking of foreign affairs and policy, especially concerning the Middle East.

Onto the second question:

Why is it that Phil Robertson's solution to dealing with ISIS sounds almost resolute to ISIS's solution?  In his own words he stated this:

"In this case, you'd either have to convert them.... which I think is uh.....would be next to impossible..... I'm not giving up on them, but I'm just saying either convert them or kill them.  One or the other."  -Phil Robertson

In layman's terms, Robertson is preaching "Join us or die".  Speaking on a more sophisticated level, the best course of action is to combat religious extremism with more religious extremism.... sounds about right I guess.  Now what exactly is ISIS's ultimatum to anyone not advocating for their cause?  This would also be "Convert or die".  A pious, bearded man whom utilizes religious scriptures to proclaim an ultimatum of "Assimilation or elimination".  A large portion of Americans would undoubtedly point their fingers at an Islamic extremist if they were to read this description.

In short, Hannity looks to be in short supply of guests on his interview segment.  That is all for now on my journey into conservative media.  I'll tell you all about my next one soon.  Until then, this is D. Politopolous on recess.

Curriculum v. Corrections- Act IV

Greetings ladies and gentlemen.  D. Politopolous reporting once again.  This is a wrap up of my discussion for now regarding education funding and prison funding.  Specifically, I'll be answering Jinx's third and final question on the topic.  So let us review the final query:

"Should budget cut protesters be focusing more on the underlying cause of these cuts such as the prison system you mentioned?"  My response to this is a definite yes.

As the statistics show, many of these impoverished neighborhoods are deprived of many essential provisions needed to maintain a presentable community.  A good bit of the youth today take no interest in receiving an education whatsoever, and many of these individuals join the same massive population of inmates.  Now many of these youth may simply have no interest in schooling, however this can not simply be blamed on the student.  The quality of the education is also a factor, as the statistics proved quite frankly in Act III.

Is it simply a coincidence that many of the lowest performing schools are in range of, if not within poor neighborhoods?  Is it mere coincidence that the majority of these neighborhoods house African-American citizens, let alone 70 percent of the prison population consisting of African-American citizens?  This is in no means restricted to the black population to be clear, and I would much rather let the readers think on this question:

"Why is it that the world finds it much easier to build tanks, prisons, and missiles, but we cannot build a simple school, a strong work force to educate our future generations?"

The answer is simple: An education is dangerous in the eyes of big business.  Corporations make no money off of an educated populous, in addition to finding it easier to keep the masses conformed and rested under their shoe with a lack of knowledge.  With that fact, it seems nothing like a coincidence that many corporate CEO's and officials are also politicians, as the policies, laws, and regulations are influenced by whom?

In the near future, I shall go deeper in depth into one aspect of this issue, and that is what the exact reason are that sees the youth take less interest in educating themselves.  I aim to touch on various other subjects related to all of this well.  Until then, this is D. Politopolous on recess.

Curriculum v. Corrections- Act III

Hey guys, D. Politopolous here again.  Apologies again for another delay, but I have returned and looked back over Jinx's questions from an earlier "Act I" post.  So I'll to continue this discussion onto the second question:

"Are there any business incentives or underlying motives for spending so much time and money to purposely incarcerate adults?"  Jinx, the answer to this question would be a definite yes in the form of what are referred to as "million dollar blocks."

When looking at the communities and neighborhoods in which people have criminal records, many of them are impoverished neighborhoods in urban areas.  In addition, these areas statistically have suffered from lack of quality education funding and resources.  High concentrations of these inmates have originated from these million dollar blocks.  Even more statistically unsettling, the mass majority of these poor neighborhoods are primarily populated by people of color.  These neighborhoods see tremendous public sector investments in incarceration of residents.  On the opposite end of this bargain, the schools in these neighborhoods are very low performing.  The areas also are densely populated, thereby maximizing corrections investments.

An adequate example of this trend is the controversy surrounding the city of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.  In 2009, the city was left with a $160 million loss in state funding, resulting in a $147 million dollar shortfall.  During this same time period, taxpayer money geared towards imprisoning residents totaled $290 million.  The source of these inmates was a mere 11 neighborhoods in the city, yet the areas held one quarter of Philadelphia's population.

In correspondence to these statistics, sixty-six percent of the city's lower-performing schools are densely located within and/or near these neighborhoods.  Contrasting this, 75 percent of Philadelphia's more equipped and well-performing schools are in neighborhoods with the lowest rates of incarceration.

This is the blueprint of the prison business in America.  And with that, D. Politopolous on recess for now.  I'll answer the final question as soon as I can.

Curriculum v. Corrections- Act II

Hey guys, Darnellios reporting again.  Accept my apologies for the delay in this post.  I have returned and shall continue where I left off on the topic of education funding v. prison funding.  Now I took a look at some of the comments on my previous post, and I took a particular interest in Jinx's questions that he posed to me.  So I will be happy to answer these questions to my fullest knowledge, and with no further ado, let me begin with the first:

"Is there any reason that so much money is being funneled into the prison systems instead of elsewhere?"

Yes indeed there is a reason, and the answer is quite simple here: The increase in prison population and incarcerated citizens.  To review, the US possesses the largest prison population in the world at 2.3 million.  In addition to that, about 5 million US citizens are on parole or probation.  That totals up to approximately 7.3 million people within the US justice system.  Turning to another country population reference, that 7.3 million rivals that of Bulgaria's population, with a difference of only a mere 55,000.  With a correction population that high, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will cost a pretty penny to maintain it all.  From quartering to providing food to security measures and other expenses, the corrections system is costly.

A prime example would be the state of California, which is currently experiencing a prison overpopulation crisis, and are currently trying to shrink the size of their prison population.  Though California has managed to decrease the occupational capacity to about 140 percent, they exceed state target capacity of 137.5 percent.  In an attempt to remedy this, prisoners are being sent out of state, while others are being shipped to private prisons.  Still more are being placed in county jails for low-level offenses. While this attributed to California's slight decrease in prison population, their jail populations are now increasing; thus they are now back to square one.

Furthermore, when the funding for prison systems comes from the same pool as education, health care, housing, and public assistance, money can and most certainly will be drained from that fund for correction costs.  Although the funding going toward the other aspects of the budget is still larger- specifically for education- than the corrections fund, the billions of dollars spent on corrections is still increasing while the other funds are decreasing, leading to a lack of funds remaining for all else.  In conclusion, more citizens incarcerated means more money towards corrections, and more money towards corrections means less money towards curriculum.

Hopefully I helped you gain a better understanding of this topic Jinx.  I will end this post here and answer the remaining questions on newer posts as soon as I can, preferably this week.  The next inquiry I shall touch on is such regarding business incentives and underlying motives.

For now, this is D. Politopolous on recess.

Curriculum v. Corrections- Act I

In the last post, I talked about excessive defense spending and what we could better utilize our money for.  Well let us speak on the topic of education systems and prison systems.  This is a highly contested topic in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, especially during the Corbett Administration.

Now the defense spending in the United States unnecessarily high, but that is not the only aspect of the American statistics that is alarming to many people.  The population of US prisons and jails is also at an all-time high.  From 1980 to the present time, the prison population grew from 500,000 to a staggering 2.3 million.  That number exceeds the population of Namibia by 200,000.  The United States now carries the inconvenient title of possessing the largest population of incarcerated citizens.  Even more ludicrous is the fact that the US accounts for 25 percent of the global prison population, yet we only possess five percent of the global population.  In addition to this, the US spends approximately $70 billion annually to jail and imprison adults, hold juveniles in detention centers, and keep close supervision on 7.3 million individuals on probation or parole.  This high level of spending on corrections has drained essential funding from other sources, one of the largest victims being education.

The majority of all imprisonment spending is on the state level.  The funding comes from one large budget that includes other aspects like education, health care, and housing.  Elementary and high school education in most states receive on average 73 percent of their funding from this source, while colleges and universities receive about half of their funding from said source.  Now every nine of ten dollars that support the imprisonment systems and process are drawn from the same fund as education.  The billions of dollars spent on funding prison systems has severely reduced the money available for education spending.

In the next post, we'll go more in depth with these costs, cost cuts, and the affects it has visibly had on education.

Defense Expense Way Over The Fence

Take a look at the American government's main portion of spending for a moment.  Yes, I am talking about military spending.  It is undoubtedly where most of American dollars are put in annually, and it has been that way for years.  Now when we look at the history of the US and its spending on defense, it did help the country rise out of the Great Depression during World War II.  In these modern times however, the level of US defense spending is highly over the fence, with defense spending amounting to 20% of the federal budget.  There is a large consensus on this issue within the US alone, and many agree we need to get our priorities straight.

When one should should take a look at the Countries spending the most on the military, the numbers are quite unbelievable.  The United States government spent approximately $618.7 billion dollars in the year 2013 solely on defense spending.  The country that totals the second highest is China, with a defense budget of $171.4 billion dollars in.  If we move further down the list, Russia will be seen at the third position with a budget of $84.9 billion dollars.  In fact, if one were to look at the budgets shown for other nations below the United States, it would show that The U.S. spends more on defense than the next eight countries combined.  These countries include- going down the list- China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, France, The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and India; all of which are allies of the US.

Statistics also state that the level of US defense spending has actually decreased in recent years by about  7.8%, while the other countries have increased in the same category.  Among the next four countries behind the US, China increased its defense spending by about 7.4%, Russia increased by 4.8%, Saudi Arabia increased by 9.3%, and France decreased by 2.3%.  In spite of that, the US still accounted for 37% of the world's defense spending in 2013.

I don't really see the relevance in spending this much militarily when we have much more pressing matters in our country to tend to.  In the next post, I shall speak of the difference in US defense spending compared to the other aspect of our budget.

Wolf's Ascension Or Corbett's Retention?

As the gubernatorial race in Pennsylvania comes to a close, many students and teachers are on the edge of their desks as they anxiously await the results of Election Day.  Many people are in support of Democratic nominee Tom Wolf, and they all hope and pray for Governor Corbett's day of reckoning.  As many people have heard, the Corbett Administration hasn't been very nice to Pennsylvania's needs; most notably the education system in the cities, especially Philadelphia.  However, as flawed as Corbett may seem, Wolf is not exactly looking the sharpest on his end either.

The final debate came to a close between the two, and quite frankly Tom Wolf seemed quite weak in his responses.  They had no substance, nor did he effectively answer any questions thrown at him.  Tom Corbett overall performed better in the debates than Wolf; he was able to give better answers to the questions.  If one should watch closely , Wolf has given his supporter little to nothing to go on.

Pennsylvania Gubernatorial Debate

What he utilizes most in his debates and attacks is the repeated statement of Corbett cutting funding to education; he answers questions repeatedly with the one claim.  In addition to this, he speaks repeatedly of plan design, and that he has a plan.  However, he does not even once speak of what that plan is.  He gives no detail, overview, nothing to think about; he only states that the state officials need to find a way to create extra revenue to increase funding and savings.  This much is true, but how that will be done is the question that Wolf failed to answer.  Corbett was visibly able to answer the questions given to him better than Wolf could.  From the looks of it, Wolf doesn't seem very trustworthy.

From the looks of it from my perspective, it appears that the election is for the lesser of two evils.  One is a loose cannon (Wolf), while the other is an ineffective politician (Corbett).  When it gets down to who would be a better option, Wolf would be such.  The question is: What will we expect from Thomas Wolf if he should take office?