Skip to main content

View Diary: A Conservative Argument for Raising the Minimum Wage (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Trouble is we have to deal with the voters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, bluezen

    we have, not the voters we wish we had.  The fact is, simple sellls.  The Dems are not good at coming up with the easily understood concept.  Which is where I believe a picture of a Big Mac or some Walmart junk with the phrase "you're paying for this even if you're not buying it" and tying "low minimum wage" with "subsidizing McDonalds" or "subsidizing the Waltons.

    •  Already heavily subsidize corporations (0+ / 0-)

      Yet the right still seem to denounce any program that helps people and will denounce any attempt at cutting those corporate subsidies.   Think about it.  Some of the biggest corporations in the country not only pay little to no taxes, some even get tax refunds.  Yet the right still absolutely believes corporate taxes are way too high and should be lowered and entitlements should be cut in order to do so.

      How do you explain to those people that we are subsidizing the Waltons and how that harms society?  I am honestly asking because I work in communications and can't figure it out.  My only reasoning is that the simplicity of the message isn't the problem.  The problem is in the person interpreting and receiving the message.  And until they experience first hand - literally are directly harmed by those they defend - they won't change.

      •  You make it personal. You don't worry about (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA, ozsea1, bluezen

        whether it harms society for this particular attempt.  You say YOU are paying for a Big Mac even though you're not buying one.  

        It's different than taxes because what you're pointing out is that the cost of a Big Mac right now does not actually cover the real cost of producing that Big Mac, and as a result every taxpayer is paying for a part of the cost of that Big Mac.

        It's taking it  out of the intellectual and making it emotional.  

        Which is what most people respond to and what the Dems are not good at.  

        •  I still disagree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Darth Stateworker

          I think telling someone they are paying for a big mac, even if they don't buy one right now is very much an intellectual point to make.  I disagree that it will illicit an emotional response at all because in order for people to understand that concept, you have to first explain it to them and they are going to tune out.  There is no direct connection the way "raise wages and lose your job" has or "do anything valuable and your taxes are going up".  Those are direct cause and effect statements made by republicans.  Sure, they are pretty much wrong and not cause/effect, but that doesn't matter.  It illicits fear and the brain shuts off.

          Saying you are paying for a big mac even if you don't buy one doesn't have that direct connection to the person.  You have to explain it to them and even still, they are unlikely to feel directly affected.

          There is a great documentary from years ago called Walmart:the high cost of low prices.  I don't think anyone saw it and that was the exact point it was making...that with those low prices comes very high costs to society, small businesses, workers, taxpayers, etc.  

          This message already exists and has had zero impact.  It is too disconnected for right wing tools to pay much attention too.

          •  I'm not concerned with the rightwing tools. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bluezen

            We don't need to convince everyone - we just need to convince a few of the more sensible ones in the middle.

            Nothing wrong with your thinking the idea's not a good one.  My experience has been that most people get it and agree.  Then again, maybe I've only been bringing it up with intellectuals.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site