Phil Murphy?

Smedley said:
I got a chuckle out of Phil's media opp at the diner earlier this week, when the owner unexpectedly threw shade on the plan to increase the minimum wage to $15. 
Phil's Utopia bumping up against the real world.  

 Yah, but then Sweeney and Coughlin pulled the guy aside and told him, in a New Joisey way, the real deal and suddenly he was all smiles and saying he loved the plan.  Seems he was not keyed in to the fact that it is phased in over time.  And that the health department was suddenly about to take a keen interest in his kitchen.

Notwithstanding the obvious humor of the situation--I mean, do these guys have advance teams?--I fail to see how a phased in wage of $15 an hour is anything less than fair.  Basically at the current minimum wage we are asking service people to finance the rest of our lifestyles by being yoked to sub-living wages in order that the rest of us can pay less for their services.

I am certain that businesses and consumers will adapt.  I guarantee there will be some pain to owners and some lost jobs, but in the long run the economy will be better off and service workers will as well.

Robert_Casotto said:
They probably came here to go to new Action Park, aka Mountain Creek Resort.

 That's why I came....

I feel conflicted about the diner owner. 

On one hand, a restaurant owner in Brooklyn, tried to run his staff, tip free. He raised prices and announced tip free because the staff was getting fair wages. So the price of the entrees was $5 or 10 above what other restaurants were charging. Customers responded by ordering lower priced stuff and avoiding the higher priced items. He reverted back to tipping in a couple of months. 

Our Sayerville diner owner is worried that he will have to raise prices and lose customers. One difference is that his competitors will also have to raise prices. 

On the other hand, if you hire workers but are unwilling or unable to pay a fair wage, you shouldn't hire the workers.

Runner_Guy said:

weirdbeard said:

Klinker said:

Runner_Guy said:

Klinker said:

Runner_Guy said:
I'm not denying there's no personal bitterness, but the differences between Sweeney and Murphy are that Sweeney has been around longer than Murphy, plans to be around NJ longer, understands the state budget better, and understands things like state aid better.

 Seems to me that the relevant difference is that Murphy was elected by the people of NJ and Sweeney wasn't.

This is the worst defense of Phil Murphy I've seen.  

It wasn't so much a defense of Phil Murphy as a slam on Sweeney, DiVincenzo and every other quasi elected official that has perpetuated the truism that NJ politics are an archetype of cronyism, back room dealing and corruption.
Seriously,  I have lived in several states and while all of them have had Governors of various stripes, I have never lived in a place where legislative, county and precinct politics were as utterly FUBAR as they are here in NJ.

 You should try living in Alabama for a while (says this 'Bama escapee....).

 ( :  a lot more New Jerseyans move to Alabama than vice versa, so you are a part of a very select group.
According to the US Census for 2016 to 2017, 1,103 New Jerseyans went to The Cotton State, versus only 169 Alabamans who moved up here. 

 I can't account for the bad choices of others...

Klinker said:

mfpark said:
 I further assume that Murphy will get little to none of his agenda passed other than what Sweeney wants, and Murphy will wind up looking weak and ineffective, opening the door for Ciatarelli or Singh to win it back for the GOP.

 So, that's what we fought to regain the state house for?  Just so a bunch of Dems could block each other and get absolutely nothing done? Sweeney needs to either put his hurt feelies aside or step down.
Of course, neither of those things are going to happen but if we can't even muster outrage at this human pimple, then we are getting the government we deserve.

I think it's superficial to think that the friction in Trenton is just because of Sweeney's "hurt feelings."   I think the real issue is that New Jersey faces a debt crisis, the highest property taxes in the country, and long-term economic stagnation and Steve Sweeney, from way before Murphy was involved in NJ politics, has been ahead of the curve in wanting to address the debt crisis, property taxes, and economic stagnation.

Indeed the term "stagnation" is inappropriate for Sweeney's South Jersey base, where there is absolute decline.  Given that South Jersey competes directly against low-tax Delaware and moderate-tax Pennsylvania, and isn't anyone's idea of a premium business environment, it would be surprising if many South Jersey Democrats were adamant progressives.  

The idea that NJ needs health care benefit reform is supported by many disinterested budget experts who are not considered ideologues.  Sweeney's Path to Progress included respected academics like Richard Keevey and Marc Pfeiffer, plus Lucille Davy, the former Commissioner of Education.  No one disputes that the health savings alone would save the state and localities over $1 billion a year.  

By contrast, what is Phil Murphy's plan on the debt crisis?  Have three-year health insurance contracts instead of four and have more audits?  Give out a few tens of million less in corporate incentives?  The money from doing three-year savings is trivial and no one can really assess what the corporate incentives savings are because no one knows what businesses are bluffing when they say they won't operate in NJ without them.  Pinning a dollar value on giving up on redevelopment in NJ's struggling cities is also impossible. 

Also, Murphy isn't even trying to sell any kind of short-term budget plan nor long-term fiscal fix.  He is acting like there is no fiscal crisis at all.

Also, it's flat-out wrong to say that the Democrats are getting "absolutely nothing done."  They've reformed state aid (S2), they've raised income and corporate taxes, they've given police & firefighters control of their own pension benefits, they raised TANF benefits, they made it hard for public sector employees to leave their unions post-Janus, and they are raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

The fact that marijuana legalization is slow is not Steve Sweeney's fault.  Sweeney favors it, but other Democrats don't, including (last I heard) District 27's own Dick Codey.  

https://twitter.com/NJ_Opinion/status/1086999916998729728

FYI... here are two graphs showing percentage job losses in South Jersey since 2010.  

No wonder South Jersey Democrats see things differently from North Jersey Democrats.

Runner_Guy said:
FYI... here are two graphs showing percentage job losses in South Jersey since 2010. 

Percentage job losses in three South Jersey counties and gains in four, resulting in an overall gain.

Unless I overlooked another link, may I ask where these charts came from?

Of 42 counties listed the bottom 10 are all in NJ.  

DaveSchmidt said:

Runner_Guy said:
FYI... here are two graphs showing percentage job losses in South Jersey since 2010. 

Percentage job losses in three South Jersey counties and gains in four, resulting in an overall gain.
Unless I overlooked another link, may I ask where these charts came from?

 The charts were made by me for the blog njeducationaid.blogspot.com for a post taking a granular, county-level look at the region's job gains and losses.  The original data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  

One motivation I had for writing that post was to dispel nonsense from Chris Christie and the New Jersey Policy Perspective.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2017/09/new-jersey-and-its-neighborss-job.html

You're right, there's an overall gain in South Jersey, although if you think of Sweeney's "South Jersey base" being southwestern NJ like Salem County.  So confusion about Sweeney's "South Jersey Base" depends on what definition you use for "South Jersey Base."

Runner_Guy said:

 The charts were made by me for the blog njeducationaid.blogspot.com for a post taking a granular, county-level look at the region's job gains and losses.  The original data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  
One motivation I had for writing that post was to dispel nonsense from Chris Christie and the New Jersey Policy Perspective.
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2017/09/new-jersey-and-its-neighborss-job.html

You're right, there's an overall gain in South Jersey, although if you think of Sweeney's "South Jersey base" being southwestern NJ like Salem County.  So confusion about Sweeney's "South Jersey Base" depends on what definition you use for "South Jersey Base."

Sweeney is a Norcross protege. Just as Norcross’s base is not confined to Camden County, I think it’d be a mistake to define Sweeney’s base by his district. But I sense that I’m leading myself into the weeds, and the Pinelands are mighty cold.

In any case, thanks for the chart info.