SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Whirlpool (the appliance manufacturer) donated washers and driers to schools and increased attendance.
According to Whirlpool's research, one in five school children report difficulty finding clean clothes to wear to school. It turns out that offering free in-school laundry services to kids with attendance problems increases their attendance.
When compared to factors like economic opportunity, unemployment, and institutional racism, laundry seems pretty inconsequential in the fight to keep kids in school. But while that might be the case for their parents, for a ten-year-old who already has the odds stacked against them, having nothing clean to wear to school could be the deciding factor in whether or not they want to face their classmates that day.
I can remember my grandmother telling me that she thought lunches in schools were a wonderful innovation, because they didn't have anything like that when she was a girl, and many children couldn't come because they wouldn't have lunch. I'm sure back then nobody thought of lunch as something school should provide. Now apparently laundry is the next big innovation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday August 17 2016, @10:46PM
Well, I suggested better pay, less hours and full employment and you accuse me of suggesting we steal from people. What's left?
What magic solution do you have that doesn't involve parents having adequate time and financial resources or creating a creche?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:09PM
Exactly how do you "vote" for better pay short of being a member of congress?
How do you "vote" for full employment?
Not that politics hasn't always attempted to rechristened the entire field of economics in their image, but you have some 'splainin' to do.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:14PM
You vote for people who are willing to act in those directions rather than speeding up the wealth transfer to Wall Street (not allowing someone to steal is not the same as stealing from them).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:22AM
No need for your quote marks.
Could be voted for before July 2016 and for a living wage. [google.com]
.
Still on the ballot[1][2] [jill2016.com] and for a living wage. [google.com]
[1] Irritation alert for those using a Gecko-based browser:
View + No Style to kill the blinking text.
[2] South Dakota is run by Nazis, apparently.
.
On the ballot in some places and definitely for a living wage. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:44AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill [wikipedia.org]
Fuck, let just change the value of pi while we're at it and "vote" instantaneous world peace.
We can then disband the government since all the work is done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:21AM
Did I forget to mention Kshama Sawant? [google.com]
That professor of Economics and member of the Socialist Alternative Party got herself elected to the Seattle City Council and, within a year, got a $15 minimum wage enacted there, as had been the main plank of her platform.
Cities across the nation are following suit.
It won't be long until there is a nationwide $15 minimum wage.
(I expect Trump to cost the Republicans a bunch of seats this time around.)
...and, if wages had kept up with productivity or inflation, the minimum wage would be over $22.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:56AM
You forgot to mention that Seattle is now in the top ten for highest cost of living.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:58PM
No you suggested that we "vote for" those things.
A very different matter. Those things are great goals.
Voting is simply not a way to achieve them. How could it be? Voting is a way to direct political force.
You vote for a higher minimum wage, thinking that will produce better pay, calling it, in fact, 'voting for better pay' and who could disagree with that right? Who in their right mind could possibly have a problem with better pay?
But you don't produce better pay. You produce higher unemployment and foster greater dependency. You're making the real problems worse, not better.
And voting for full employment? Well yes in a sense the state CAN produce full employment. Draft everyone and unemployment will be 0. But we'll starve with no one doing anything productive.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:39AM
I strongly suspect that Basic Income would guarantee full employment.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:51AM
Many western countries (not all) have higher minimum wages and lower unemployment than the US. Proof that higher wages do not directly translate to higher unemployment.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:26AM
Sheesh.
Again, differentiate between actual market wages and state enforced minimum wages. Totally different things.
When you impose a minimum wage, this has only two possible outcomes. If it's low enough in relation to market wages, it has little to no effect at all. If it's high enough to have an effect, it produces unemployment, and raises the barrier to entry in the labor market, which helps to institutionalize unemployment.
To put it another way, you think you're helping Joe entry level worker with no job skills or experience trying to gets started. His pay is pitiful and they should really be forced to pay him more!
But the minimum wage law is unlikely to result in him getting a raise, and much more likely to result in him being let go, his position will either be automated or the work will be given to higher paid employees with other skills, and he'll be unemployed.
Plus his little brother who's going to need a job next summer? Yeah, good luck with that.
See you can't just legislate good outcomes and expect it to work like magic. Politics is a tool, a very particular form of tool. The government can only give with one hand by taking with the other. This is why the founders wrote of it as like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master, and wrote a constitution of limited powers to chain it down.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday August 18 2016, @04:05AM
Another possibility is that some of the rich don't increase their wealth quite as fast. I understand one of the largest employers and the largest low wage employer in the USA is Walmart, a business owned by one of the richest families in the USA and a business that depends on welfare to make up the shortfall in their wages. Would you really feel bad if they had to pay a living wage, their employees got of welfare and your taxes went down while their wealth increase slowed.
As for the small businesses, they'll have to raise their prices instead of crying to the government, a $1 cup of coffee is not a right.
Where I live, the minimum wage is the lowest in the country while the cost of living is the highest, at least for a densely populated area. The small businesses don't raise wages, they cry to the government for subsidies or the right to bring in foreign workers who don't know what they're getting into and get royally screwed trying to pay of the debt they had to take on to get the job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:56AM
In Denmark, no one is paid less than $20/hour.
There isn't a minimum wage law there.
The thing is, in Denmark,
1) they have strong labor unions.
2) they clearly don't have an ownership class dominated by sociopaths.
.
Between FDR (1933) and Nixon (1968), minimum wage laws worked to produce a strong USA with a stable, even prosperous Working Class.
(In that period, not coincidently, there were also tariffs[1] on imports; USA unions were strong too.)
Union bashing by Lamestream Media and Neoliberalism destroyed that stability for USAian workers.
[1] Germany doesn't have tariffs but they accomplish the same thing with a value-added tax and rebates.
The German economy is the strongest in the world because their economists are better that USA's.
...and it's clear that Germany won WWII.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:06AM
In Denmark, no one is paid less than $20/hour
Well, that's a good thing considering their cost of living is significantly higher.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Cost-of-living [nationmaster.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:08AM
Yet you're still better off getting $20/hr in Denmark than getting minimum wage in the U.S.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:45AM
Since I don't have a magic wand, voting for people willing to move in that direction seemed more practical than wishing really hard. I'm still not seeing where stealing comes in.
The places in the U.S. that raised the minimum wage haven't seen higher unemployment. Tariffs and restricting H1-B would help with full employment (and improving wages) without a draft. We could try diverting money from the blowing up brown people fund to infrastructure improvements. That would improve employment without coercion.
Or we can mope around talking about how nothing will work and we're doomed (all while refusing to try any other approach) until the prophesy fulfills itself.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:02AM
That's just it, I don't have any magic solution, I very much doubt there are any.
Which leaves us with little hope as a species.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:03AM
Which leaves us with little hope as a species.
--
Just curious: what species would that be?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:46AM
Narcissius Delusionius Libertarianius
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:06PM
What I find striking is because none of the proposed ideas are perfect, the only acceptable perfect answer is to prevent the enemy, which is good in general, because it isn't the friend that is completely perfect. I do not really understand that argument. Compromise is what this is about. If you dont feed the kids, they won't be learning as well or paying as much attention, and your tax dollars later will end up trying to fix some problem that was mostly preventable if a compromise was reached before. A ounce of lunch provided now is a pound of paying taxpayers later.
Based on the responses, it doesn't sound like the perfect solution of doing nothing has many friends.
I didn't read the book, but I am going to guess Atlas Shrugged because he was indifferent to such burdens since he was carrying his own.
Similarly, we might next learn that my kids are not hungry because I haven't had any, so the solutions proposed are just as unacceptable because they are not perfect for my needs, which are presently none due to the lacking of said children to feed. Providing resources is unacceptable because The Man is stealing from my mouth no matter how you present the results.
I pay property taxes for schools I don't attend and don't send anyone to--but I see it as a benefit. A libertarian can view this two ways -- that this is a terrible expense that rips off able bodied tax payers to bulge the coffers of the local governments, or... that I can hope those kids that grow up in a relatively stable environment and good schools become adults that may be some of the young people that take care of me when I am old! Getting them angry and jaded now probably won't help me when I am in the old folks home... they might grow up into people that don't care about anyone else.
Of course I'd much rather that their parents foot more of the bill, but my demands for cheap stuff and inexpensive services makes it hard for their employers to pay much more and still be competitive and stuff. The invisible hand sometimes has an invisible middle finger that is more widely felt than one would expect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @04:34PM
Ideology over rationality. Its the hallmark of fundamentalism.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:45AM
Well if it's all going to hell anyway, why not mandate a higher minimum wage and implement tariffs and see if we can slow it down a bit?
Perhaps the problem is people objecting to anything that even tries to act on the problem including a purely private and completely un-coerced initiative by Whirlpool.
They do that and already you're grabbing at your wallet with your eyes bugged out in fear.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Arik on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:30AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:48AM
Gee, it sounds like we should just commit mass suicide, there being no solution and all. Or we can keep our eyes shut and our hands off the wheel until we crash into the rocks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:02PM
I am getting so fed up with your mightier than thou attitude. I am a web developer you insensitive clod, ECMAscript is how I make my living, pay my mortgage, and feed my family. You can just go to hell!
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday August 18 2016, @04:46AM
Hint: look outside of the US. In particular, have a look at the Scandanavian Countries. Things work pretty well there.