SEIU UHW has a history of bringing economically explosive populist slop to the ballot as a negotiating tactic. Usually it's in the form of something about dialysis clinics but this time they're trying a different angle.
What about that were you specifically "interested" in?
> Dialysis companies say the costly requirement would force them to close some clinics, and have so far poured $105 million into fighting the measure, arguing it amounts to a hardball move by the union to drain industry finances until clinics agree to allow their workers to unionize.
Seems like the $105 millions could have been used for something more useful, like a few doctors salaries or specialized PAs at the clinics. It sounds like you consider "economically explosive populist slop" is anything that helps poor people. Which you know, I expected, but I'm glad you were able to explain yourself. In the future you can just say "let them eat cake".
People who want to use the current system to innovate and create jobs. The current system of venture capital often produces these situations when people have a huge amount paper "wealth". But this wealth is all pretty hypothetical. It's not like some of the "billionaires" can buy 1 billion things from the McDonald's Dollar Menu. It's all tied up in stock that can't be sold for a variety of reasons. Moreover, it's quite likely that the "billionaire" will end up with far less than $1b when he/she retires, even if everything is wildly successful.
Yet that big number encourages greedheads to try to tax something that doesn't really exist.
The “greedheads” are the ones wanting people to pay their fair share of taxes, and not the people who’ve hoarded billions in wealth, and are using some of that wealth to fight to continue tax avoidance?