Hey guys, this week’s CI blog will be my deliberation review. I went to my roommate’s deliberation on Sunday at 3:00pm at The Commonplace down on Fraser Street. I had never heard of this place before so I didn’t really know what to expect. It was really nice though! There were brick walls and comfy couches in a decent sized room that had an antique kind of feel. I’m still not sure what they use the space for on a day to day basis but it seemed like just a cool place to chill.
I didn’t necessarily go to this deliberation because of the topic, the shrinking of the middle class, but rather for support of my roommate. I brought my boyfriend and our other friend and we were three of the six people there who weren’t in the class. The others consisted of a another couple and then this old man. I think he said he was 66. His name was Jim. He dominated the discussion for the full 2 hours.
It was honestly hilarious. The “Honey We Shrunk the Middle Class” deliberation turned into an old grandpa telling us youngins his life experiences and wisdom. Unfortunately, he was a little oppressive and didn’t make for an open floor kinda vibe. Rather, it seemed the students there were afraid to say anything against his old man conservative rigid views. Not that I didn’t agree with a lot of the things he was saying, but just that he was very close minded and set it his ways, as old people usually are.
I will tell a little more about the deliberation topic now, but I’m sure Jim will come back into conversation. The three approaches to how to solve the problem of the shrinking middle class were 1) raise the minimum wage 2) implement a more extreme progressive tax structure and 3) do nothing and trust that the economy can work it out on its own.
I do not think that raising minimum wage is a good fix to this problem. I know there are a lot of people in poverty but can our economy even handle this? As the minimum wage goes up, the amount of employees that smaller business can hire goes down. So there is a clear trade-off between minimum wages and employment. I’d rather be employed than get a $1 an hour raise. While the economy may be stimulated by this, there are going to be an equal amount of problems. Jim was very against this idea because he doesn’t think all workers are worth $7.35 an hour, let alone the proposed raise of $10.10 an hour. He made a good point that employees need incentive to work and to improve and develop skills. If they start at a high wage, this won’t be there. A lower minimum wage is necessary to inspire workers to get better at what they do and asked for deserved wages.
A second approach, a more progressive tax structure, means taxing those who make more money more heavily. This is in place right now, but this solution proposed a more extreme difference between the taxes the different classes pay. I don’t agree with this approach either. Our country was made on a foundation of our founding fathers ideals of having the ability of building yourself up from nothing. It is the American Dream! Why should the people who were able to do this be, in a sense, punished? I understand they have excess that could be more beneficial to the poor, but this is not the responsibility of those who were able to be successful.
The third approach, a laissez-faire type, is probably the best to me out of the three options. Rather than making such drastic changes, all I think we need to do is control corruption and maybe try to ignite some more responsibility and determination into our people.
Jim told us some hilarious things, such as “not to smoke” and “not to make babies.” He said that to succeed in a job, all you have to do is do the minimum: show up on time, do your job, and don’t piss anyone off, because not a lot of people even do this. He wanted us to make sure we were always being an asset rather than a liability to our employers. I think he is definitely right, but he said this stuff too much and didn’t talk enough about the deliberation and the solutions at hand.
He also said some pretty radical things, such as “you need two genders to raise a child right” and asked the Asian boy next to him if he was an immigrant. I had to hide my face behind my deliberation guide to hide my hysterical laughing/silent crying from him when he asked that.
All in all, I didn’t really learn anything new from this deliberation and strengthened my original values. It was definitely fun and amusing though!
Did you guys experience anything like this at the deliberations you went to?
Thanks for reading!
-Emily
Tessa Elizabeth Sontheimer says
I haven’t been able to attend a deliberation yet but hopefully after break. It sounds like you had an interesting experience. Jim sounds kind of bombastic. I think for the deliberations to be more effective there needs to be more people and opinions. At least at the deliberation we held everyone supported vaccines thus making the discussion very once sided. I’m not sure what I believe on this issue but I do believe that is the responsibility of those that have more than they need to help those that do not have. Sounds like that was an interesting deliberation!
Kyle Brown says
Hey Emily,
Unfortunately the deliberation I was going to attend got cancelled so now it looks like I am going to have to wait until after the break to participate. However, I did experience the one we ran, and I thought it went well, and I certainly didn’t have as bad a time as I was expecting. That being said its a real bummer that that guy dominated the conversation, I feel like absolutely nothing is accomplished if only one voice is heard throughout the entire deliberation. I guess the moderators should have done a little better job of making sure everyone had the chance to talk. He seems like a rather… interesting guy, and may have been fun to talk to, but seems like he kind of ruined the deliberation in terms of productivity. I’ll let you know if anything like this happens at the one I attend!
Alexander Smith says
Emily,
Wow, I have to say the deliberation I went to was nothing like this. I went to support a friend also and I was only one of two extra people so it was fairly intimate. The guy named Elliot from New Life was kind of radical in his views but he was never dominating. This Jim guy seems exactly like the worst-case scenario participant we talked about. I’m certainly glad he wasn’t at our deliberation! To actually say the raising a child thing and ask the kid if he was an immigrant?? You just don’t do that! But this deliberation sounded very interesting. I am also partial to the third approach simply because the first two seem very radical. They also seem to have more cons than pros but that’s just me. Raising the minimum wage has far-reaching economic consequences that may make the situation worse and increasing the progressive tax structure would alienate half the country. Overall, I think we should just leave it alone.