Our local government has proven over the past few years that it is incapable of a solution to traffic in Austin. Austin is the 4th most congested city in the nation, and the fastest growing as well. The obvious elephant in the room is that Austin's roads cannot fit all of the cars that are here and are moving here. The city needs a plan.
One of the solutions that they have been trying to implement is an above ground rail system. This extension was shut down by the public, due to the inefficiency and lack of riders of the current train system. The metro bus system has begun to improve with the speed buses that are said to adjust lights so that they can travel through the city faster. Unfortunately, I-35, Mopac, 183, and 360 are all more congested than ever.
So what can be done to fix the issue? Building highway 130 to alleviate traffic on I-35 turned out to not reduce traffic, as the road was too inconvenient and truck drivers worried about the high speeds endangering their trucks. Wild ideas have been thrown out by the public, such as digging under the city to make a pass-through highway or installing a large subway system. One can dream. Others have claimed that a fix would be to adjust behavior by adding incentives for ride-sharing or staggered business starting hours.
Whatever the fix may be, the city needs to make this issue a high priority or the problem may become un-fixable. This problem needs to be solved while Austin is just the 11th largest city and not the 10th or 9th.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Monday, August 3, 2015
Minimum Wage
The blog post on "Concepts of Texas Politics" makes an argument against raising Texas or Federal minimum wage. Raising minimum wage is an incredibly important issue for anyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon or has fallen on hard times. The idea that any American can work hard and achieve a house with a fence in the suburbs with 2.3 kids is an antiquity that does not exist in modern America. The fact is that many Americans do not have the option or ability to go to college or apply to many jobs with more required qualifications than Wal-Mart.
That being said, these jobs at best may pay a few cents an hour over $7.25 as mandated by the government. Based on a 40 hour work week (which is generous, considering that many companies are cutting hours so that they will not have to provide benefits due to the Affordable Care Act), this means that these Americans are making roughly $14,500 per year. In modern American, that is simply not enough money to survive alone, let alone support a family. Assuming that a family could eat for $50 a week (optimistic), that leaves the family with $11,900. Median rent in the US is roughly $900 a month ($10,800 a year). How does this person get to work? Not with a car, as that is now out of the range of affordability. It's simply not possible to make minimum wage without needing government assistance.
Saying that allowing people to have a wage that would allow them to eat would hurt the economy is asinine. The economy in the US is hurting specifically from a low wage. Many large corporations take advantage of this cheap labor knowing that the US government will subsidize their labor. Currently, Wal-Mart is costing the US government approximately $6.2 billion in food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing. Most small businesses already pay their employees more fairly because the business owners are not as far separated from their employees. Raising the wage would not be a detriment to the economy, just to the top income earners of the US. Based on return on investment of the economy and where Wal-Mart stands, they could afford to pay their employees 50% more without hurting their stock, according to Stanford finance professor. There are many examples of companies, both large and small that are extremely successful while paying their employees generously. There are also many examples of companies that treat laborers as this post would suggest (disposable) that have failed spectacularly.
Finally, the argument that the government should pay attention to the businesses that lobby them when making a decision about a livable wage goes against the principles the US was founded upon. If big business had they option, they would pay their employees as little as absolutely possible, and we would revert to social structures of the industrial revolution, or the poverty levels of China. The government is supposed to speak for the people in their district, and mandating companies to pay their employees a fair wage is one of the ways representatives should help their constituents.
The largest problem with the entire debate in America is calling it a minimum wage. It is a livable wage.
Post in Response to Concepts of Texas Politics Opinion Article "Minimum Wage Raise"
That being said, these jobs at best may pay a few cents an hour over $7.25 as mandated by the government. Based on a 40 hour work week (which is generous, considering that many companies are cutting hours so that they will not have to provide benefits due to the Affordable Care Act), this means that these Americans are making roughly $14,500 per year. In modern American, that is simply not enough money to survive alone, let alone support a family. Assuming that a family could eat for $50 a week (optimistic), that leaves the family with $11,900. Median rent in the US is roughly $900 a month ($10,800 a year). How does this person get to work? Not with a car, as that is now out of the range of affordability. It's simply not possible to make minimum wage without needing government assistance.
Saying that allowing people to have a wage that would allow them to eat would hurt the economy is asinine. The economy in the US is hurting specifically from a low wage. Many large corporations take advantage of this cheap labor knowing that the US government will subsidize their labor. Currently, Wal-Mart is costing the US government approximately $6.2 billion in food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing. Most small businesses already pay their employees more fairly because the business owners are not as far separated from their employees. Raising the wage would not be a detriment to the economy, just to the top income earners of the US. Based on return on investment of the economy and where Wal-Mart stands, they could afford to pay their employees 50% more without hurting their stock, according to Stanford finance professor. There are many examples of companies, both large and small that are extremely successful while paying their employees generously. There are also many examples of companies that treat laborers as this post would suggest (disposable) that have failed spectacularly.
Finally, the argument that the government should pay attention to the businesses that lobby them when making a decision about a livable wage goes against the principles the US was founded upon. If big business had they option, they would pay their employees as little as absolutely possible, and we would revert to social structures of the industrial revolution, or the poverty levels of China. The government is supposed to speak for the people in their district, and mandating companies to pay their employees a fair wage is one of the ways representatives should help their constituents.
The largest problem with the entire debate in America is calling it a minimum wage. It is a livable wage.
Post in Response to Concepts of Texas Politics Opinion Article "Minimum Wage Raise"