Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

California

Thunderbeast

(3,656 posts)

3. ...and just WHAT problem does this solve?

Reply to BigmanPigman (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2023, 07:15 PM

Apr 2023

Consumers SHOULD make the connection between consumption and cost. Artificial subsidies based on income should be transparent and easy to understand.

Whether it's housing, utilities, food, or medical care....Wages and income ARE TOO LOW to support wage-earners, especially those working at traditionally low paid jobs. The hourly minimum wage should be about $25 had inflation adjustments been made since the 70s.

Investors have stolen ALL of the benefits of a growing economy since Milton Friedman economists started running federal policy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SDG&E, PG&E, SCE propose billing electricity customers based on income [View all] BigmanPigman Apr 2023 OP

So a household with, say, $500K annual income grumpyduck Apr 2023 #1

The math is confusing to me bucolic_frolic Apr 2023 #2

...and just WHAT problem does this solve? Thunderbeast Apr 2023 #3

+1 2naSalit Apr 2023 #4

I understand this, it's better than what we have today CoopersDad Apr 2023 #5

Might be a sneaky way to make homeowners with solar panels pay more Zorro Apr 2023 #6