TouchedTheAxeIn82;842473334 said:

---

The changing weather pattern is what is going to sink California. :cry:

---

Its certainly not helping the ski industry. That said, if the concern is over water, there are waiys to handle that issue (see my post above). If the concern is about energy consumption (more use of air conditioning, etc.), that issue is actually helped, as Cali leads the country in solar and alternative energy use. In talking with contractor friends, essentially every remodel or new home has solar panels installed these days. I'm not saying Cali is perfect, but there are many innovations that are implemented in this state that in the long run will make this a better place.

Two cents on the subject is that states have different economies and economic performance is cyclical, based on economic trends states have very little control over. And politicians are given way more credit for a strong or weak economy, and in particular, governors inherit economies based on the actions over prior decades.

A lot of how the state versus state battles line-up is on cherry picking certain periods to take advantage of business cycles impacting the states. Political economists are great at doing this. It would seem to best way to manage a state economy is to promote the greatest diversity in industries, to provide for a more stable growth rate. I suspect Cali and Texas will continue to be impacted by tech and energy cycles.

NYCGOBEARS;842473210 said:

---

Convince Blue Diamond of that.

---

Fruits, Vegetables & Grains


If you want to really reduce the water footprint of your food then eating a diet where fruits, veggies and grains for the vast majority of your calories is clearly the way to go--it also happens to be healthier, cheaper and better for carbon emissions, by the way. But even here there are some big variations:
Lettuce -- 15 gallons;
Tomatoes -- 22 gallons;
Cabbage -- 24 gallons;
Cucumber -- 28 gallons;
Potatoes -- 30 gallons;
Oranges -- 55 gallons;
Apples -- 83 gallons;
Bananas -- 102 gallons;
Corn -- 107 gallons;
Peaches or Nectarines -- 142 gallons;
Wheat Bread -- 154 gallons;
Mango -- 190 gallons;
Avocado -- 220 gallons;
Tofu -- 244 gallons;
Groundnuts -- 368 gallons (actually almonds are somewhat less);
Rice -- 403 gallons;
Olives -- 522 gallons;
Chocolate -- 2847 gallons; (One pound of chocolate being quite a serving of chocolate...)


Meat & Dairy


This is where water intensity really starts increasing. If you want to reduce the water footprint of your diet, this is where you want to really cut back:
Eggs -- 573 gallons;
Chicken -- 815 gallons;
Cheese -- 896 gallons;
Pork -- 1630 gallons;
Butter -- 2044 gallons;
Beef -- 2500-5000 gallons

My beef, pork, and chocolate diet is gonna cost you all. :acclaim:

socaliganbear;842473761 said:

---

My beef, pork, and chocolate diet is gonna cost you all. :acclaim:

---

You tell them they can't have chocolate!

wifeisafurd;842473756 said:

---

Fruits, Vegetables & Grains


If you want to really reduce the water footprint of your food then eating a diet where fruits, veggies and grains for the vast majority of your calories is clearly the way to go--it also happens to be healthier, cheaper and better for carbon emissions, by the way. But even here there are some big variations:
Lettuce -- 15 gallons;
Tomatoes -- 22 gallons;
Cabbage -- 24 gallons;
Cucumber -- 28 gallons;
Potatoes -- 30 gallons;
Oranges -- 55 gallons;
Apples -- 83 gallons;
Bananas -- 102 gallons;
Corn -- 107 gallons;
Peaches or Nectarines -- 142 gallons;
Wheat Bread -- 154 gallons;
Mango -- 190 gallons;
Avocado -- 220 gallons;
Tofu -- 244 gallons;
Groundnuts -- 368 gallons (actually almonds are somewhat less);
Rice -- 403 gallons;
Olives -- 522 gallons;
Chocolate -- 2847 gallons; (One pound of chocolate being quite a serving of chocolate...)


Meat & Dairy


This is where water intensity really starts increasing. If you want to reduce the water footprint of your diet, this is where you want to really cut back:
Eggs -- 573 gallons;
Chicken -- 815 gallons;
Cheese -- 896 gallons;
Pork -- 1630 gallons;
Butter -- 2044 gallons;
Beef -- 2500-5000 gallons

---

The problem with some of these statistics is that lettuce is 95% water, so a better question is why bother eating it at all, let alone shipping it all over the country. (Another question is whether the embodied water is even accounted for)

GB54;842473767 said:

---

The problem with some of these statistics is that lettuce is 95% water, so a better question is why bother eating it at all, let alone shipping it all over the country. (Another question is whether the embodied water is even accounted for)

---

How much water does it take to produce tofu? It's gotta be a big #.

NYCGOBEARS;842473786 said:

---

How much water does it take to produce tofu? It's gotta be a big #.

---

Interesting question; you'd have to account for the water used in growing soy, drying the beans, soaking them again, then precipitating out the curds. I suspect a lot but you are at least getting a high quality protein so better compared with meat production

GB54;842473767 said:

---

The problem with some of these statistics is that lettuce is 95% water, so a better question is why bother eating it at all, let alone shipping it all over the country. (Another question is whether the embodied water is even accounted for)

---

I question how these sorts of statistics are calculated.

In my experience olive trees need hardly any water at all. There is a street a few blocks down from me called "Olive" and there are some very old olive trees on it. I don't know if they are remnants of a farm or just someone decided to plant them. Either way they get no supplemental irrigation and they do fine. That is why countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, and Tunisia produce olive oil. Now that isn't to say that (as with grapes perhaps) some farmers water the hell out of them to increase yields, but that is more about farming practice than type of crop.

Pistachios are similar in that they really don't need much water to survive. However, farmers (of course) want to maximize production.

Here is an article about that:

http://westernfarmpress.com/california-pistachio-growers-learn-how-farm-less-water

“Pistachio trees are very deep rooted and can survive in extremely dry conditions. But that drought tolerance says nothing about productivity..."

Maybe flooding the orchard every couple weeks (while cheap and easy) is not the most efficient way to farm in an arid location. The article recommends micro-irrigation and actually taking the time to calculate when and how much the trees need to produce. The days of cheap water are over in California so we need to farm smarter than we did 100 years ago.

GB54;842473791 said:

---

Interesting question; you'd have to account for the water used in growing soy, drying the beans, soaking them again, then precipitating out the curds. I suspect a lot but you are at least getting a high quality protein so better compared with meat production

---

Tofu was mentioned in the post above. It says 244 gallons, but 244 gallons per what unit?

dimitrig;842473792 said:

---

I question how these sorts of statistics are calculated.

In my experience olive trees need hardly any water at all. There is a street a few blocks down from me called "Olive" and there are some very old olive trees on it. I don't know if there are remnants of a farm or just someone decided to plant them. Either way they get no supplemental irrigation and they do fine. That is why countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, and Tunisia produce olive oil. Now that isn't to say that (as with grapes perhaps) some farmers water the hell out of them to increase yields, but that is more about farming practice than type of crop.

Pistachios are similar in that they really don't need much water to survive. However, farmers (of course) what to maximize production.

Here is an article about that:

http://westernfarmpress.com/california-pistachio-growers-learn-how-farm-less-water

"Pistachio trees are very deep rooted and can survive in extremely dry conditions. But that drought tolerance says nothing about productivity..."

Maybe flooding the orchard every couple weeks (while cheap and easy) is not the most efficient way to farm in an arid location. The article recommends micro-irrigation and actually taking the time to calculate when and how much the trees need to produce. The days of cheap water are over in California so we need to farm smarter than we did 100 years ago.

---

I know the guys in the valley irrigate the hell out of pistachios, but a lot of them are younger trees so there is that also, but yeah there are a lot of ways to do this better and we have the best people in the world up at Davis.

California can't compete with Morocco on olives so not much production here anymore

dimitrig;842473793 said:

---

Tofu was mentioned in the post above. It says 244 gallons, but 244 gallons per what unit?

---

That's the question. Is it per weight, per calorie delivered, per unit of protein delivered? You can skew results anyway you like, but all foods are not equal

dimitrig;842473793 said:

---

Tofu was mentioned in the post above. It says 244 gallons, but 244 gallons per what unit?

---

Missed that.

GB54;842473800 said:

---

That's the question. Is it per weight, per calorie delivered, per unit of protein delivered? You can skew results anyway you like, but all foods are not equal

---

Good questions. Yes, its on weight, so there are biases. I can't think of any way to do it without some bias, since foods have individual traits.

The example being cited on one of those viral "infomercials" for green causes is the guy holding the hamburger yelling at the guy watering his car. The response back from the guy watering the car is something like :"I could run this hose 24/7 for 17 days for the amount of water used to get that hamburger." I suppose you could vary the number of days by the type of meat used, how big the hose is and any number of variables, but you get the point. The primary reasons almonds get a lot of abuse is there is so much total water being used in total on them (good Mother Jones article on how we use three times the consumption of water on almonds than LA consumes in 3 years) because Cali provides most of the US almonds, and the demand for almonds has skyrocketed due to nutritionist types now saying drink almond milk rather than cow milk.

[h=2]The Bay Area economy is booming. So why aren't more people moving there?[/h]
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/28/8300391/silicon-valley-slow-growth

smh;842473467 said:

---

i pity the fool comes to Ca expecting cheap higher education. those days are loooooooong gone.

---

I should have said relatively "cheaper" or better value.

Housing prices are skyrocketing right now. In high end areas they are going through the roof, and you can't even barely get a hovel in West Oakland for less than 800K. Dykes has probably made as much off his Piedmont home as his salary.

Oski87;842474444 said:

---

Housing prices are skyrocketing right now. In high end areas they are going through the roof, and you can't even barely get a hovel in West Oakland for less than 800K. Dykes has probably made as much off his Piedmont home as his salary.

---

I sure hope he is not selling????

Bernie Sanders on Forum this morning. Couldn't agree with him more.

Campaign finance reform is absolutely, without a doubt, the ONE most important issue in this country. Fighting all the little battles is a waste of time. If I were more of a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the issues are trumped up as a distraction. Keep fighting for gay, disabled, women's rights (and all the rest) for 20 years while the wealthy few at the top run away with the prize. Yes, we absolutely need publicly-financed elections. Without it, nothing will improve. Moneyed interests will only further erode our representative democracy.

TandemBear;842474648 said:

---

Bernie Sanders on Forum this morning. Couldn't agree with him more.

Campaign finance reform is absolutely, without a doubt, the ONE most important issue in this country. Fighting all the little battles is a waste of time. If I were more of a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the issues are trumped up as a distraction. Keep fighting for gay, disabled, women's rights (and all the rest) for 20 years while the wealthy few at the top run away with the prize. Yes, we absolutely need publicly-financed elections. Without it, nothing will improve. Moneyed interests will only further erode our representative democracy.

---

You and Bernie are absolutely right. Our democracy is at risk. I honestly wonder if our "right-side" bears see it too. If they do there is a chance. If it becomes my team vs. your team change is difficult to see. I don't think the Yankees, nor Barcelona, think there is too much money in sports.

UCBerkGrad;842473262 said:

---

But is he wrong?

---

No, Krugman isn't wrong. But it is interesting how some people put words in his mouth to refute him or say he should be looking at different data and then claim he is full of it. Krugman is very clear here.

Krugman says critics said Obamacare would destroy job growth. In its first year of existence, job growth has actually skyrocketed. Additionally, half of that growth came from California, which critics have also written off as an economic wasteland in recent years. California currently has higher job growth than Texas.

There is nothing wrong here or out of context. Sure there are other stats one could use if they wanted to present a different argument - there always are. But Krugman is very clear about the stats he is using, why he is using them, and what they say. Any attacks on Krugman here are just ad hominem.

I listened to Bernie on my way into work today. I like a lot of what he has to say, but I fear that he and people like him don't understand how business works at all and that taxing the crap out of the high achievers in society may be favorable to he and the less fortunate for a short-term redistribution of wealth, but not for long-term wealth creation. I also hope that when minimum wage is increased, there is an exemption for small businesses.

I'm not a right-side bear, but I agree campaign finance needs reform. Our politicians are owned by unions and the Koch brothers. I don't love the idea of government funded campaign finance and frankly wish there was just less money in politics altogether. The campaign advertisement industry is out of control in general and all it does it mislead people. Unfortunately, I'n not sure there is a winning answer here. Manipulating the media seems to be a better path to victory than running an honest campaign, and I don't see that changing even with reform.

Maybe the answer is enforcing spending limits on campaigns and wrapping superpacs into these limits. It's all just a huge waste of money that could be better spent. Republicans - think of all the bombs (or prisons) you can buy with the money you're spending on tv commercials! Democrats - think of all the pensions you can blow it on!!!!11!!1!

TandemBear;842474648 said:

---

Bernie Sanders on Forum this morning. Couldn't agree with him more.

Campaign finance reform is absolutely, without a doubt, the ONE most important issue in this country. Fighting all the little battles is a waste of time. If I were more of a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the issues are trumped up as a distraction. Keep fighting for gay, disabled, women's rights (and all the rest) for 20 years while the wealthy few at the top run away with the prize. Yes, we absolutely need publicly-financed elections. Without it, nothing will improve. Moneyed interests will only further erode our representative democracy.

---

right again TandemBear, congrats, you just summarized most (or all) of this fool's life. must agree,, Nothing Will Improve.

lamentation theme song, the artsy version:

we might as well head home [inline pic, suppressed]:

Unit2Sucks;842474734 said:

---

Maybe the answer is enforcing spending limits on campaigns and wrapping superpacs into these limits. It's all just a huge waste of money that could be better spent. Republicans - think of all the bombs (or prisons) you can buy with the money you're spending on tv commercials! Democrats - think of all the pensions you can blow it on!!!!11!!1!

---

Would that you could, but our Supreme Court has taken care of that. Money is speech and independent expenditures cannot be limited. And spending money on politics pays off. Heard a case last week of a donor giving $1.5 M in dark money to a campaign and a year later getting a bill signed that netted him $1.8 M in tax savings. Hard to argue with a balance sheet like that. It's the same reason Unions spend. All parties are buying something. It is not rocket science.

Sadly, what you need to do is devalue the money spent by outsiders by matching it with public resources. That means a lot of public resources, because there is a lot of outside money. There are some reforms that could help. Shorter campaigns require less money.

Yeah, one of Bernie's arguments is that we need a constitutional amendment on campaign finance due to Citizens United. I guess I don't have a sense as to just how much money we would be talking about having the government spend to finance campaigns, but I would much rather see that money going to help the underprivileged, or you know, stay in taxpayer's pockets. The only thing worse to me than seeing my taxpayer dollars by and large wasted (which is how I generally view our collective government right now) is having those dollars turned into campaign commercials. It's like the opposite of buying a subscription to a website or app to avoid ads - you're paying more to get bombarded with ever increasing ads!

Unit2Sucks;842474763 said:

---

Yeah, one of Bernie's arguments is that we need a constitutional amendment on campaign finance due to Citizens United. I guess I don't have a sense as to just how much money we would be talking about having the government spend to finance campaigns, but I would much rather see that money going to help the underprivileged, or you know, stay in taxpayer's pockets. The only thing worse to me than seeing my taxpayer dollars by and large wasted (which is how I generally view our collective government right now) is having those dollars turned into campaign commercials. It's like the opposite of buying a subscription to a website or app to avoid ads - you're paying more to get bombarded with ever increasing ads!

---

Yeah, I want campaign spending limits (overturn Citizens United) and free air time given to (all) candidates to make speeches and for debates. I don't want to use taxpayer money to try to drown out the Koch brothers' money. That is insane. That would end/bankrupt our democracy even faster than the rate is is going now--probably much to the glee of the Koch brothers.

calumnus;842474820 said:

---

Yeah, I want campaign spending limits (overturn Citizens United) and free air time given to (all) candidates to make speeches and for debates. I don't want to use taxpayer money to try to drown out the Koch brothers' money. That is insane. That would end/bankrupt our democracy even faster than the rate is is going now--probably much to the glee of the Koch brothers.

---

Agreed. That's why I mentioned resources, not money. The public airwaves and postal service are resources. We could make them available to candidates at little cost. It could be funded by a small tax on advertising sales. In other words, paid for by people who are profiting from the cost of campaigns. There are lots of things that could be done, but the politicians like the system the way it is. Democrat or Republican, as it is now, incumbents win. Good luck getting them to change a system rigged in their favor. Big donors like the system as it is now also. They have influence. It costs them, but it pays for itself.

Unit2Sucks;842474734 said:

---

I listened to Bernie on my way into work today. I like a lot of what he has to say, but I fear that he and people like him don't understand how business works at all and that taxing the crap out of the high achievers in society may be favorable to he and the less fortunate for a short-term redistribution of wealth, but not for long-term wealth creation. I also hope that when minimum wage is increased, there is an exemption for small businesses.

I'm not a right-side bear, but I agree campaign finance needs reform. Our politicians are owned by unions and the Koch brothers. I don't love the idea of government funded campaign finance and frankly wish there was just less money in politics altogether. The campaign advertisement industry is out of control in general and all it does it mislead people. Unfortunately, I'n not sure there is a winning answer here. Manipulating the media seems to be a better path to victory than running an honest campaign, and I don't see that changing even with reform.

Maybe the answer is enforcing spending limits on campaigns and wrapping superpacs into these limits. It's all just a huge waste of money that could be better spent. Republicans - think of all the bombs (or prisons) you can buy with the money you're spending on tv commercials! Democrats - think of all the pensions you can blow it on!!!!11!!1!

---

I could argue that your first statement shows you don't know how business works on a macro economic scale. It's easy to draw that conclusion, but just because it appears to be common sense doesn't make it true. You SAY taxing the top earners and redistributing wealth stifles wealth creation (well, it does for those at the top), but others argue against this very statement. Robert Reich calls it lost economic opportunity of wealth concentration; the wealthy don't create as many jobs as putting that money to good use in other ways. And I tend to agree with those conclusions for two main reasons. First, the American economy boomed incredibly after the great depression when wealth distribution was much stronger. This also happened to coincide with American union membership at very high levels - as much as a third of the workforce. So, so much for the union stifling business argument. Second, the tax cuts at the top, in addition to the income gains at the top have NOT resulted in wealth creation for the vast majority of Americans. The tax cuts the top SHOULD have resulted in MORE wealth creation for the middle class. Nope. Jacob Hacker points out in "Winner Take All Politics" that income growth for the middle class - and barely growth at that - is mainly a result of additional hours worked by women entering the workforce in higher numbers. Now, you may choose to quote your sources that supposedly contradict that, but I'm sticking with the ones I've listed several times here. The middle class in America is being screwed and anyone with two eyes can see it.

Cool, so I guess if we want to build a competitive economy based on unskilled labor in the middle 20th century I'd agree with you. I don't think the conclusions you've drawn based on the 1940's is all that relevant to the problems facing our country today.

Unit2Sucks;842474877 said:

---

Cool, so I guess if we want to build a competitive economy based on unskilled labor in the middle 20th century I'd agree with you. I don't think the conclusions you've drawn based on the 1940's is all that relevant to the problems facing our country today.

---

Well, that's just a lame cop-out. I say we need the wealth resources tied up at the top more than ever now. If EVER there were a good reason to institute free technical education for inner city youth, NOW would be it. This is the exact time where the money spent on educational programs for the poor is about the best investment you could ask for.

As I drove down Telegraph Ave. in Oakland today, I thought about the poor state of so many of American cities. Boarded up abandoned buildings line much of Telegraph. Then there's Detroit, which has bulldozed not just a few houses, but entire neighborhoods, totalling 600,000 homes. Wow, what happened? Economists need to study the economic drain the under and unemployed inner city people cost our economy. Not only the cost of the lack of productivity that results, but the additional costs of crime, health costs, law enforcement and all the rest to society ("Ghettoside" anyone?!) Once upon a time, a high-school educated Oakland resident could earn a middle class wage in a factory somewhere. Now, that's gone. What are these people to do? "Make better life choices!" is the resounding reply from the right. Well, high school and college attendance rates are higher than they were decades ago, yet we still can't provide meaningful employment. Not everyone will become a brain surgeon or app developer. And even if all the uneducated young adults in America did, would there be THAT many surgeon and app developer jobs available to them? No, we've simply abandoned a large segment of the population. We make ourselves feel better by using the "better life choices" statement. But it's hollow and cruel. You'd think America could and would do FAR better than offering meaningless platitudes to the poor. (I'll admit this is a bit of a non-sequitor, given my conclusion below. I actually wrote it responding to another post, but decided to include it here instead. I think it still applies, given the lack of job security and opportunity the uneducated are faced with.)

So think of the millions of Americans who conclude that the economy has left them behind. Well, it has. Higher education is harder to afford. Achieving in school is especially challenging in a tough urban environment.

So that's what we should be doing with the billions at the top. Instead of allowing them to accumulate even more there, put them to good use teaching inner city kids how to code. Show them that there's a much more lucrative life in high tech than there is in selling drugs.

Unit2Sucks;842474877 said:

---

Cool, so I guess if we want to build a competitive economy based on unskilled labor in the middle 20th century I'd agree with you. I don't think the conclusions you've drawn based on the 1940's is all that relevant to the problems facing our country today.

---

The problem we face today is a weakened middle class due to money being aggregated at the top. With so little money for the middle class and with a shrinking middle class, demand shrinks making it harder to grow the economy and provide jobs. Without adequate demand there is little incentive to invest (what are you going to invest in?). Policies that reduce income inequality are the way forward (i.e. higher minimum wage, taxing the wealthy to provide healthcare ala Obamacare, estate taxes spent on providing jobs to rebuild infrastructure).

TandemBear;842474892 said:

---

Well, that's just a lame cop-out. I say we need the wealth resources tied up at the top more than ever now. If EVER there were a good reason to institute free technical education for inner city youth, NOW would be it. This is the exact time where the money spent on educational programs for the poor is about the best investment you could ask for.

As I drove down Telegraph Ave. in Oakland today, I thought about the poor state of so many of American cities. Boarded up abandoned buildings line much of Telegraph. Then there's Detroit, which has bulldozed not just a few houses, but entire neighborhoods, totalling 600,000 homes. Wow, what happened? Economists need to study the economic drain the under and unemployed inner city people cost our economy. Not only the cost of the lack of productivity that results, but the additional costs of crime, health costs, law enforcement and all the rest to society ("Ghettoside" anyone?!) Once upon a time, a high-school educated Oakland resident could earn a middle class wage in a factory somewhere. Now, that's gone. What are these people to do? "Make better life choices!" is the resounding reply from the right. Well, high school and college attendance rates are higher than they were decades ago, yet we still can't provide meaningful employment. Not everyone will become a brain surgeon or app developer. And even if all the uneducated young adults in America did, would there be THAT many surgeon and app developer jobs available to them? No, we've simply abandoned a large segment of the population. We make ourselves feel better by using the "better life choices" statement. But it's hollow and cruel. You'd think America could and would do FAR better than offering meaningless platitudes to the poor. (I'll admit this is a bit of a non-sequitor, given my conclusion below. I actually wrote it responding to another post, but decided to include it here instead. I think it still applies, given the lack of job security and opportunity the uneducated are faced with.)

So think of the millions of Americans who conclude that the economy has left them behind. Well, it has. Higher education is harder to afford. Achieving in school is especially challenging in a tough urban environment.

So that's what we should be doing with the billions at the top. Instead of allowing them to accumulate even more there, put them to good use teaching inner city kids how to code. Show them that there's a much more lucrative life in high tech than there is in selling drugs.

---

Out of curiosity are you for or against charter schools?

TandemBear;842474892 said:

---

As I drove down Telegraph Ave. in Oakland today, I thought about the poor state of so many of American cities. Boarded up abandoned buildings line much of Telegraph. Then there's Detroit, which has bulldozed not just a few houses, but entire neighborhoods, totalling 600,000 homes. Wow, what happened? ...Once upon a time, a high-school educated Oakland resident could earn a middle class wage in a factory somewhere. Now, that's gone. What are these people to do?

---

Well said, TB

My perspective: We sold them out with our trade policies that get me very cheap consumer goods, at the cost of my neighbor's job. Now, you can argue for the advantages of "Free-Trade" and I will concede that there are many, but they come at a cost. Many of us reap the rewards and give no thought to those in our society that are paying the cost. We pretend that we deserve those rewards, the result of our "good life choices" and that the poor also deserve their lot. I see an element of luck in my current situation, and an element of privilege. I feel an obligation to help people who were not as lucky as I was.

Here's the sticky part: I think we all have that obligation, whether one feels it or not and I am comfortable compelling people (through taxation) to contribute. After all, I am compelled to contribute to pay the cost of all of the wars. To me it is all the same.

jhbchristopher;842474933 said:

---

Out of curiosity are you for or against charter schools?

---

Would these charter schools be compelled to take any child that sought admission, the way public schools are?

Those could work, though there are issues with any system that allows participants to select out. The problem is that it is often the most motivated that leave. Their absence diminishes the experience for the rest. It is wrong to hold those students hostage, but it is important to recognize the impact that their leave-taking has, and then compensate for the loss. That is often the missing piece in the conflict around Charter Schools. What happens to the kids who are left behind (for whatever reason)?

How is higher minimum wage going to help any middle class families (other than by helping their retail and fast food employed high school age children)? I don't think anyone is proposing to raise minimum wage to a level such that minimum wage employees will be middle class.

I think the problem goes much deeper. The reason the middle class is shrinking and being marginalized is because, as much as it pains me to say it, they are contributing less to the creation of wealth in this country than they have in the past. In 1950, 12% of our population worked on farms, now it's down to 2%. We can't go back to 1950. If you want the middle class to succeed in the United States, you need to think about what we can do to support that middle class to succeed against global competition. This idea that people can just show up to do an honest day's work and live the American dream is based on a fiction - the fiction is that we can artificially maintain the relative value of unskilled labor the way it used to be comparatively early in the industrial revolution (which is how I'd described post-war US). I don't believe we can redistribute our way out of this.

And let me add that I absolutely love Obamacare and think it's only a matter of time before the republicans realize how great it is for this country and decide to rebrand it in a partisan-neutral way. I bet they thought they were geniuses calling it Obamacare instead of ACA or something else a few years ago when they thought it might not be a success, but they badly misplayed their hand. In 5 years they will correct dems every time they hear the word "Obamacare" and they will attempt to recreate history to make it seem as though it was some grand bipartisan effort. You can count on it because that's what politicians do when they're on the wrong side of history. I would also love if it we as a country would spend more on education. I would love it if California would spend more, but recent history has shown otherwise. We raise taxes and spend less and less on education. More and more of our taxes are being redistributed to retirees who already milked our country for their entire working lives by supercharging the economy with government debt.

dajo9;842474925 said:

---

The problem we face today is a weakened middle class due to money being aggregated at the top. With so little money for the middle class and with a shrinking middle class, demand shrinks making it harder to grow the economy and provide jobs. Without adequate demand there is little incentive to invest (what are you going to invest in?). Policies that reduce income inequality are the way forward (i.e. higher minimum wage, taxing the wealthy to provide healthcare ala Obamacare, estate taxes spent on providing jobs to rebuild infrastructure).

---

G!B - I agree with what you said, but it goes both ways. A lot of the consolidation of wealth at the top of our society has come from value created by selling premium American goods and services across the world. Would Apple, Facebook or Google be multi-hundred billion dollar organizations without a world market?

Go!Bears;842474944 said:

---

Well said, TB

My perspective: We sold them out with our trade policies that get me very cheap consumer goods, at the cost of my neighbor's job.

---