You really don't want to bring constituents up because Joe Manchin's constituents make below minimum wage and have been wiped out, they really want that raise.
It's all about how fancy the place is, you can live in the heart of downtown for cheap or pay 3k+, but the exact same price range exists out in the sticks.
If they did that, they'd no longer have the excuse that Sen. Manchin is stopping them.
Depends on what they want and how much of his position is based on their desires.
Also consider this, when the inflation adjusted minimum wage was twice as high is when bumfuck nowhere was doing best. These communities have been doing much, much, much worse in the present than they were when the minimum wage was (relative to inflation) twice as high.It's been well argued in many places that raising wages encourages people to shop locally more than big box stores.
Key Studies: Why Independent Matters
A growing body of research is giving us new ways to quantify the harms of bigness and the benefits of local ownership. In this post, we round-up the important studies and provide the evidence that policymakers can use to craft better laws, business owners can use to rally support, and citizens...ilsr.org
Keeping wages low is how you keep Walmart in power in the middle of nowhere because I'll tell you right now, living in the middle of nowhere isn't really cheaper than living in a city. Funnily enough rent doesn't necessarily go down in smaller towns compared to larger ones, property taxes also aren't really linked with urbanization. What does influence living prices in an area is how much money is already there, which makes sense, you can't get blood from a rock. If people aren't pinching every penny, they'll be more likely to shop locally, which keeps their stores open to pay people to shop locally.
Here is some info, then:
www.dailyposter.com
If Vice President Harris were to ignore the advisory opinion of the parliamentarian, the Democrats wouldn't need Manchin or Sinema. They'd only need 41 no or abstain votes on the matter.
It still sounds like its ultimately a better idea to just divorce it from the covid relief and try and get it passed afterwards. If only to get the relief for America quick since its actually pretty popular even across party lines. (I think it has like 60% support from republicans) Having to go through all these convoluted processes would just make it take more time and you still have the issue of red states suing and taking it to the supreme court. I mean I'm not sure how much the court would care about how congress gets things passed, but you can be sure red states would do it.
www.opensecrets.org
Why is this only ever a concern when Democrats are in office and/or the goal is to do something for the poor?
Because only about a 10% of politicians actually want to do anything about this and most are Dems. There isnt any point talking to a Republican. They're into the Charles Murray sense of society. You give money to the rich because that 'betters society faster.'
Because this is a rather conservative country and conservatives kinda don't want to do much. For democrats to actually win and have the power to do anything they need a coalition of both progressives and moderates. Plus, democrats tend to be less willing to just march in lock step like republicans are expected too. But even republicans have to deal with their own party elements, like that trump tax plan actually took them a lot of time and effort to pass even ignoring democrats.
There's plenty of good reason! Democrats don't want to do anything that might make rich people slightly less rich just like Republicans so they're going to do what they always do; just enough to make it look like they put up a fight but not actually put up a fight.
Democrats: The Party of Slightly More People than the Republicans
I'm not even sure that's true anymore.
If you want fundamental change then pay more attention to local elections since those are much more likely to have an effect that you can directly see.
jacobinmag.com
