Isn’t the point of entry level jobs to provide job experience to kids or recent grads so they can move up?

Oi, there is so much to unpack in your comment:

“

Because we live in a service economy, which requires service workers. Requiring services but thinking those that provide them to us are unworthy of living out of poverty is immoral, plain and simple.

What I’m saying is that paying these workers a living wage will not impact the money going into the endowment. That is, as you stated, driven by factors unrelated to these salaries.

For those who are going to bitch about the endowment and “how it works”, the endowment is there to provide income for ongoing operations of the University, and a large chunk of that is for ‘general support’. On the other hand, there’s unrestricted net income. Per Harvard’s annual financial reports, Unrestricted Net…

This. The “everyone else is doing it” argument towards mistreating your staff doesn’t apply when you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of higher ed.

Because you want to avoid the look created by this strike.

Right around the time welfare reform came into being, and forced adults into low paying, dead-end jobs, instead of being allowed to get educated (not just college, but trade schools, tech schools--any education) so they would have the skills necessary to get into actual career-level work.

True, but all of those are normal budgetary events. Organizations often give salary increases with the assumption that their revenues will continue to match pace. When that doesn’t happen they either cut costs or increase their revenues.

I get that. But if the endowment is used to fund the operating budget and the operating budget is where the salaries for staff is drawn from, then you can use the endowment to pay these folks a living wage. Not directly, I get it, but through normal budgetary means.

Right. But the salaries for these workers are covered in the operating budgets, correct?

I never, ever said I was voting for Stein. Christ... your projections against fellow leftists make this impossible.

Actually, if you look at coalition systems it tends to decrease gridlock as it creates a government where you simply can’t go zero-sum.

Yep. Tell that to the DNC who don’t believe legislative seats are worth fighting for.

You realize the DNC has “ignore downticket races” as a core belief, yes?

My answer would be - yes I’m fine with that. Although Jill Stein is a nut and I’d never vote for her. Voting your conscience is not wrong, regardless of who actually ends up winning. Clinton and Trump are two sides of the same coin, very little will change regardless of which one of those two undeserving candidates…

What about people who have real, from-the-left critiques of Clinton that have never been actually addressed?