The District Weekly - Latest Comments in POORISM

Re: POORISM

geo — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:11:45 -0000

President Kennedy's Sec of Health, Education and Welfare, John W. Gardner said it best:

The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy
because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.
John W. Gardner

Re: POORISM

dare_to_care — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:34:04 -0000

Dave, you are not going to convince lbresident he is an elitist because close-minded people are incapable of seeing outside of themselves. Everything I've read by lbresident smacks of wanton narcissism. This person pompously eats breakfast while admiring the reflection in the mirror. Unions were invented to protect workers from avaricious industrialists. By lbresident's definition, the working poor in any citizenry would soon be the former middle class by default. The inherent systemic flaw is that we expect the subsidized industry to regulate itself (much like Wall Street, the banking industry and other corporate welfare beneficiaries) and operate as trickle-down economic engines. The result is that greed forbids any trickling down and the engine stalls because of a clogged carburetor .

Re: POORISM

Dave Wielenga — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:19:47 -0000

What you are saying is that if you have the proper skill set to make a good living it is a reflection on what kind of person you are. I am assuming you have the "skill set" necessary to thrive or at least survive, and from that perspective you are judging yourself better than those who dont---as if economic success were totally and completely a matter of hard work. These people work hard. I'm sure, too, that it takes some imagination and work for these hotel execs to get millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies---that is part of their skill set, then? Is it a part of their set that you admire? Or should we make them rise or fall on the quality of the hotel they offer and how many guests they attract? Dude, they've soaked up millions and millions and millions.

Re: POORISM

Dave Wielenga — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:15:14 -0000

Hi John. Haven't seen you here in awhile. The problem with the LB tourism industry is precisely that the "free market" is not at work. The city subsidizes many hotels, for instance---and outrageously in some cases. If you research the history of the LB Hyatt, for example, you will be stunned at the amounts of money it was advanced, how the city stepped in when the hotel failed to pay its bills, taking on some of those payments and negotiating some of them down with the hotel's major credito, Mitsubishi, and then being sued by the hotel (and paying up) millions of dollars the hotel said it lost when the LB Convention Convention Center was being expanded (which, of course, was done to INCREASE visitors to Long Beach hotels). Against this kind of government subsidy, low income workers have no chance to allow the free market to play out. The thing about this kind of free market is that the subsidized business takes the profits but none of the risks. Wouldn't we all like to have our investments and businesses protected like this? It would be so much easier to develop that "skill set" that others are talking about. And it is this kind of audit I think is necessary -- to either see how we can make the Long Beach tourism industry stand on its own or else to equally spread around the government help.

Re: POORISM

lbresident — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:46:51 -0000

I never said I was better than a poor person. Your comment is insulting.

All I'm saying is if you're poor, and you don't like it, do something about it. Improve your skills and get a better paying job. Don't say, I have this low paying job and I should be paid more just because I feel like I should make more money.

Re: POORISM

Dave Wielenga — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:59:27 -0000

Actually, here are the points I ought to make. First, that you really can't positively refer to workers in industries that are unionized as examples of why unions are bad. Find other examples, I guess. But the other thing is that I believe that a world with unions is a second-best word---second best to a world in which workers are treated well enough that they don't have to go through the time-and-dues-consuming hassle of forming and operating unions. Unions are a response to poor management, and often a last resort. That's why they are so difficult to organize. If these hotel workers were being paid a living wage with basic benefits there would be no argument. But the hotels in Long Beach are being subsidized by taxpayer money to create jobs that bring down the quality of life and further burden the taxpayer. That's my only point; spend taxpayer dollars more wisely. And don't look at a poor person and use them as a way to make yourself feel better---as some kind of measuring stick that says that because you are not poor you are somehow better. That's not the point of the American experience; it's contrary to what's written on the Statue of Liberty.

Re: POORISM

Dave Wielenga — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:50:10 -0000

Did you have fun over the weekend? Unions brought you that...and think of all the productivity that has been lost by not working 24/7.

Re: POORISM

lbresident — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:04:14 -0000

First, that isn't true. Union or no union, Kobe would be making lots of money. He has tons of leverage because he is arguably the best at what he does in the world and has a skillset that is not easily replaceable. The union is irrelevant.

Second, my point is not that unions prevent people from making money. My point is that unions largely result in environments where performance is not rewarded as much as tenure. (Ex. teacher's union. There is no incentive to be a good teacher. As long as you don't steal or moleste a kid you won't get fired and you will make as much money as any other teacher. The teacher's union has created a horrible system that hurts education.)

If you have differentiated skills you will make more money. If you don't you will and should make less. Artificially creating wage floors results in many problems including higher prices, inflation, and reduced incentive to achieve.

Really, I'm just so tired of all the whining. If you want to make more money, improve yourself and do it. Nobody is stopping you unless you're in the teacher's union. Then you can't make more money for being great.

We're not going to agree on this. You think unions are good for the economy and workers. I think they slow the economy and encourage workers to make excuses for failure and accept mediocrity in themselves.

Re: POORISM

Dave Wielenga — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:47:37 -0000

My point is that your example used industries that are COMPLETELY unionized. You cited extraordinary "workers"--Kobe Bryant and Brad Pitt--rising to great heights, but the collective bargaining agreement sets a base wage from which merit pay can be determined. Among the other aspects of collectively bargained contracts that have enabled Kobe and Pitt to thrive--the threat of a strike, the right (in the case of the NBA) to play out one's contract rather than be held in perpetuity by one team, the right (in the case of screen actors) to be free of the studio system. The market adjusted to those contracts, and to nothing else. Without those union contracts, Kobe and Pitt wouldn't have a thing to bargain with...kind of like the hotel workers now.

Re: POORISM

lbresident — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:34:46 -0000

my reply was to Dave W. Somehow I mistakenly posted as if it were to you. Actually it seems we agree on many things.

Re: POORISM

Live_in_LB — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:13:29 -0000

(From RJ_In_LB) RE minimum wage, there is a variety of different data that rolls into the final determination of minumum wage, including anticipated market adjustments and anticipated cost of living. At its essance, the governments set minimum wage as an estimate that is supposed to account for all of these things. Like any estimate, there will be a deviation from what actually occurs. So, of course, in some cases the market rate for base wages and the cost of living outpace the minimum wage. We've seen that regularly in the US since minimum wage system began due to the consistent and tremendous growth that our economy has experienced. Especially post World War 2, which is almost the entire existence of the minimum wage.

Right now, business is in a downturn and the supply of unskilled workers is growing rapidly (probably faster than any other pool). By that same token, the supply of manufacturing and light industrial labor has increased with globalization that has occurred during the past 10 years (primarily the inclusion of India and China as major players). It is also expected that we may enter a deflationary period due to the significant drop off in spending (personal and commercial), as seen in the news (although who knows will all the cash that the government is printing). But, I doubt you would suggest that the minimum wage be lowered as a result...

Furthermore, tell me how your quote "Kobe Bryant makes more money than Derek Fisher because he has a stronger skill set" does not coincide with my point that "there is a direct correlation between one's wages and the fair value of their skill set (the message that I think LBRESIDENT was trying to send). Seems like the same point to me.

And as to your disagreement with my conclusion, please be specific. I'm interested in understanding your point. Different points of view have always been a great way for me to learn.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I appreciate it.

Re: POORISM

lbresident — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:14:43 -0000

That is not the point I made. Nor do I agree with YOUR conclusion.

It is an economic fact that when government sets a minimum/living wage, ultimately the market adjusts and the articial wage does not accomplish what was intended.

Re: POORISM

RJ_in_LB — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:29:58 -0000

I do agree that there is a direct correlation between one's wages and the fair value of their skill set (the message that I think LBRESIDENT was trying to send). But, I do not think that Kobe or Brad are good examples to support your or LBRESIDENT's point - they would be doing just as well without a union due to the nature of their industries (entertainment).

Fundamentally, I think there is a problem. The problem is that there are so many LB residence that only qualify for jobs that fall into the unskilled and low income categories. This in itself is an issue. Note: These pay rates do not break any wage laws, nor do they underrepresent the value that I believe the employees are delivering.

By increasing the minimum wage for unskilled jobs, we would be positively reinforcing the pursuit of such jobs. This will make our community and its individuals less productive, less successful economically, and less educated.

LB should be incentivising its low income / unskilled population to obtain the education necessary to build a more valueable skillset, which they could then leverage into a more economically rewarding career. Instead, they are supplementing the income of these employees to make it more comfortable (but still a long way from comfortable) to exist as an unskilled / low income resident.

Furthermore, LBs incentive to build a newly valuable skillset through education should tie into the education of these individuals' children. What are these folks doing to ensure that their kids do not pursue a similar unskilled / low income future which would place the same burden on themselves, and an even greater burden on LB (larger population of unskilled workers). Unfortunately, parents' lifestyle creates a cycle with their children that repeats itself. Many unskilled workers today would most commonly suggest that we will have even more from the next generation. That's a big problem.

To completment its incentive for a higher skilled workforce, LB should refocus their incentives / subsidies to the high growth industries that the new economy is forecasting - new energy / high tech / new media. By attacting such businesses to LB, it will providing an environment in which the pursuit of higher skilled jobs is a reality. Without this aspect, LB will not be able to create a realistic roadmap toward healthy, sustainable job creation and such a local economy.

With that said, it is important for LB to maintain diversity in its community. This is because diverse environments are always the most enriching in which to exist. Among other types of diversity, this includes economic diversity. While not encouraging low income / unskilled roles in our community, we must also make sure that we never exclude them - make available mixed use housing, public education, etc).

Re: POORISM

RJ_in_LB — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:27:55 -0000

Re: POORISM

Dave Wielenga — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:28:40 -0000

In a comment a few days ago, LBRESIDENT used two examples to support his argument that a worker's "skill set" determined how well that worker was paid. He wrote, "Kobe Bryant makes more money than Derek Fisher because he has a stronger skill set. Brad Pitt makes more money than other actors because he brings in more money for producers." True. But both Kobe Bryant and Brad Pitt work in very unionized industries. The contract between the NBA's Players Association and the National Basketball Association establishes minimum salaries for players based on their years of experience--and those minimums do not count against the salary cap. This year, those minimums range from $442,114 for a player with no experience to $1,262,275 for a player with 10 or more years of experience. Those minimums go up every year. Likewise, the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA set minimum pay requirements for actors, including residuals for subsequent screenings and sales of their work. As you noted from the way that exceptional talents like Kobe and Brad have flourished, their unions did not take away their motivation to excel--instead, it provided a basis for that excellence. Thanks for pointing that out!

Re: POORISM

J9 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:35:16 -0000

1. LB hotels pay their workers less than workers in LA, (including LAX) and less than workers in OC.

2. In response to the Working hard for less pay; these workers work hard and receive minimal pay, the jobs are entry level with minimal room for promotions, they take these jobs because it is the work they can get.

3. The city should invest in its citizens by investing in good jobs, not subsidizing jobs that produce poverty.
** good jobs pay well, provide benefits, treat employees with respect, and provide enough stability that workers are not forced to work more than one full time job, live in poor housing, house with mulitple families, or require state subsidizes.

4. It is nature for cities to compete, but competing for business without regards for their citizens is neglecting the role of a city.

I hope people engage the city to be respectful and responsible.

Re: POORISM

OC Surfer — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:04:25 -0000

Remove the breakwater, and restore the waves, and poverty will be removed for most parts of Long Beach. Period.

Neighborhoods will regentrify and improve and tourists will actually stay here in Long Beach longer than their convention stay. With the breakwater gone, I forsee the potential of Long Beach being the next Downtown San Diego, with a vibe in between of Manhattan Beach and Huntington Beach.

Re: POORISM

RJ_in_LB — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:28:27 -0000

A hearing may be a good idea. But, I think equally important to determining what type of city we don't want to be / how we do not want to allocate our resources is what type of city do we want to be in the future? What type of short, mid and long term investments need to be made to create real, sustainable jobs in the new economy?

We have inexpensive realestate, great public transportion access from and to LA, an airport, and the west coast's largest port. But, we still can't make that work to our advantage. It's pretty sad.

To directly address our city's investment in LB tourism.. I do not know all of the facts. But, from a common sense perspective I look at a So Cal visitor's other options:
1. Disneyland
2. Hollywood
3. Other beaches in OC or LA

Trying to compete with these alternatives seems foolish.... throwing good money after bad money.

Re: POORISM

wrongbeachjohn — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:12:39 -0000

Just listen to the whores at the chamber of commerce; the only good welfare is corporate welfare.

Re: POORISM

What's_in_a _name? — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:36:02 -0000

No more subsidies to the tourism industry! If the damn thing can't make money on it's own then we all need to face the fact that our tourism industry is a failure. It either needs to die on its own, or figure out how to succeed.

Re: POORISM

lbresident — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:37:08 -0000

Are you implying that someone who was born here and knows English does not have the opportunity to get an education?

Re: POORISM

concernedtaxpayer — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:44:42 -0000

You may have a point regarding certain social welfare programs, but isn't the $750 million in taxpayer money spent on corporate welfare (tourism industry) equally offensive? If that money is just adding to the pocketbook of corporations, with no real net gain to residents or workers, that should be a sound argument to end corporate welfare as well. That seems to be where the article and study are getting, .i.e, "calls for... a reassessment of the city’s longtime economic strategies."

Re: POORISM

LB resident against poorism — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:30:02 -0000

I never said people shouldn't learn English. I think they should, if I moved to France and didn't learn French I certainly wouldn't expect any extra accommodations. I just meant that the language barrier is not the main reason for poverty in this city. There's a large portion of the population that were born here and speak the language just fine who can't find better opportunities. I'm not talking about hand-outs, I mean investing in education. As we all know education can make the difference, but it shouldn't be so difficult to obtain. With constant cuts to libraries, youth programs, colleges, grade schools and other learning resources why is anyone surprised that the cycle of poverty continues?

Re: POORISM

lbresident — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:40:28 -0000

English is the language of success in this country. If you live here for 10 years and don't bother to learn it, you can not justifyably complain about your wages.

Programs may be getting cut, but anyone who wants an education can get one. Stop making excuses for people and they'll stop making them for themselves.

Re: POORISM

lbresident — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:38:40 -0000

Long Beach has more poverty than it should. This is due to the magnets for poverty such as low income housing and social services that our city council has instituted.

I"m not playing the NIMBY game. I don't want this stuff anywhere (but especially my backyard). These are destructive programs that do not motivate people to strive to be their best.

Go ahead, use that yardstic. Kobe Bryant makes more money than Derek Fisher because he has a stronger skill set. Brad Pitt makes more money than other actors because he brings in more money for producers.