| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those intent on subjecting themselves to Monday's PotUS debate, do you have any recommendations for alcoholic libations? (Sorry DB, no puff-puff/bubble-bubble for me)
I've taken a fondness for Downeast Cider. Don't know if you'll find that in Florida, but the seasonal pumpkin spice is alright--and even got the thumbs up from Comrade Who Was Published In Jacobin and he usually goes on violent anti-pumpkin spice rants this time of year--but I like the Cranberry Blend.
Also, we ended up getting a dozen to The Communist Manifesto lecture, but most of them came because of Facebook and only one because of the $43 worth of leaflets that I made.
F$#%ing leaflets.
Geez. Don't you all gang up on me for my gnomist comments. :p ;)
And to be perfectly clear: If I had total power, I'd focus on increasing revenue as well. However, I don't, and we're never going to get both. We're lucky to fill the potholes in the current climate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit. I'm racist. I hate gnomes. :p
*is pretty sure that's going to get me banned...*
Where do they get off, drinking their marmalade and eating steamed broccoli? You know, they're just Illusionists so they can make it look like they're working...
Of course, some of my best friends are gnomes.
|
Defense spending is ludicrously high. I'm not an isolationist, but we need to quit playing world cop. I'd cut this to 50% within ten years. The potential savings from defense contracts alone are astronomical.
Cut, cut, cut the amount we spend to imprison our own people. I'd release the vast majority of non-violent offenders, drug and otherwise. We'd need fewer prosecutors, prisons, prison guards, etc.
Yes and yes.
Social security should phase out if you have excessive income. Yup, I went there. They also need to raise the full retirement age to reflect longer lifespans.
No and Hell no!
High income now is no guarantee of having money in retirement. Sure, people with high income are more likely to be ok, but the whole point of social security is as a safety net if things go wrong. Switch to somehow phasing it out for people who have retired with large savings and we can talk. Though... the potential savings from such a small population would likely not be worth the hassle of implementation.
As to longer lifespans... look at the data on that per income level. The upper class are living much longer due to what modern medicine can achieve if you have unlimited funds... lower and middle class life expectancies have barely budged for decades. Ergo, NO... we should NOT be raising the retirement age. Indeed, we should be LOWERING it (as was originally intended).
Corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and tax loopholes needs to go.
Stop wasting money deporting people and militarizing our border. Let every healthy person of working age that wants to work her do so.
Socialized medicine. Wait, you say...that's spending. Only it really isn't by the time you take the profit out of healthcare (which is a morally repugnant idea, anyway).
Yes, yes, and likely yes depending on the details of implementation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Geez. Don't you all gang up on me for my gnomist comments. :p ;)
They started it!
"Hatred: Gnomes receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the reptilian and goblinoid subtypes due to special training against these hated foes."We are just humble goblins going about our affairs.
You fail macroeconomics forever. You don't run a nation's budget the way you do a households. Because the first is not simply a scaled up version of the latter.So I keep hearing. But I never we should. And I actually got in A in Macro. :P
Here's the problem: If our debt-to-GDP becomes high enough that the world loses confidence in our ability to repay our debts, then we're stuck with a bunch of maturing bonds that we can only pay by taking our new debt a drastically inflated -- and ruinous -- rates. "Printing" money to address the problem merely speeds the cycle.
It takes a lot of inflation to reach 'ruinous' levels, although you can reach simply 'damaging' levels earlier. Or at least, that's my understanding. I don't study modern macroeconomics as closely as classical, but prices in Roman Egypt were able to rise to four to six thousand times the original over about sixty years (roughly 15% year-on-year inflation) with deleterious but manageable effects. That's high normal inflation, but not even close to hyperinflation (which, using the standard definition of minimum 50% month-on-month inflation, works out to a minimum of about 13,000% year-on-year inflation by my napkin math).
Both 15% and 13,000% seem far off from the 1-2% rate that comes with our current debt load and circumstances.
|
No and Hell no!
Let's put aside the practical implementation issues for a moment and focus just on the politics. Everyone who lived through the 80s and 90s knows that a means-tested program is a program doomed to a lingering death. It's simply too easy to make a moral case that the recipients are undeserving of their benefits. I can hear the BS now: "these people had fifty years to save and invest, and now hardworking folk like you and me are supposed to subsidize them while they laze around?"
Not completely open borders.
I said "every" person, but let me walk that back: Anyone under, say, 30, that is healthy and has no criminal record should be able to get a work visa. That work visa should then offer a path to citizenship, but a felony should result in deportation and cancellation of the visa.
We NEED healthy young people for our workforce. Let's make them legitimate, tax (and serve) them, and treat them like what 99% of them are: Good people.
No and Hell no!
High income now is no guarantee of having money in retirement. Sure, people with high income are more likely to be ok, but the whole point of social security is as a safety net if things go wrong. Switch to somehow phasing it out for people who have retired with large savings and we can talk. Though... the potential savings from such a small population would likely not be worth the hassle of implementation.
Agreed...I definitely meant something along the lines of "if you have sufficient wealth," but it may well not be worth bothering.
As for Congress: I don't care if the savings were trivial. As for the revolving door, I'd make anyone who wants to serve sign an agreement to not lobby upon leaving office for a period of not less than twice the years served.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not completely open borders.
I said "every" person, but let me walk that back
I liked the first answer better.
My preferred solution would be to simply remove the racist quota system which limits the number of people who can gain entry to the U.S. (either for citizenship or temporary work) from Mexico (and other countries).
Tada! 'Illegal immigration' solved... everyone who wants to immigrate can now go through the process to do so legally and be accepted if they aren't a criminal.
Tada! 'Border security' solved... with people able to legally immigrate the only people who would need to sneak across the border would be actual criminals. The much lower illicit border traffic would also make the business of being a border smuggler financially unviable. No more money for cross border tunnels. No more bribes to officials to look the other way. No more industry dedicated to that purpose. Much easier to catch a handful of lone criminals with no support infrastructure than trying to pick them out of all the desperate people sneaking across. Greater border security at lower cost. No wall required.
For over a hundred years now we've been shooting ourselves in the foot with bigoted immigration policies that achieve no beneficial purpose and cause a host of massive problems. We need only stop doing that.
Not completely open borders.
I said "every" person, but let me walk that back
I liked the first answer better.
My preferred solution would be to simply remove the racist quota system which limits the number of people who can gain entry to the U.S. (either for citizenship or temporary work) from Mexico (and other countries).
Tada! 'Illegal immigration' solved... everyone who wants to immigrate can now go through the process to do so legally and be accepted if they aren't a criminal.
Tada! 'Border security' solved... with people able to legally immigrate the only people who would need to sneak across the border would be actual criminals. The much lower illicit border traffic would also make the business of being a border smuggler financially unviable. No more money for cross border tunnels. No more bribes to officials to look the other way. No more industry dedicated to that purpose. Much easier to catch a handful of lone criminals with no support infrastructure than trying to pick them out of all the desperate people sneaking across. Greater border security at lower cost. No wall required.
For over a hundred years now we've been shooting ourselves in the foot with bigoted immigration policies that achieve no beneficial purpose and cause a host of massive problems. We need only stop doing that.
I think we largely agree, given that my major condition was "not a criminal."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now for something slightly different:
Flat earthers were briefly alight with with idea that Trump was one of them.
Who would have thought that individuals with such stellar critical thinking skills could be so easily fooled?
Now for something slightly different:
[Url="http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/09/25/fake-news-site-trolls-flat-earthers-with-story-claiming-donald-trump-has-gone-flat-earth/"]Who would have thought that individuals with such stellar critical thinking skills could be so easily fooled?
I would have thought they'd be horrified
All I know is I'm pretty sure Trump is a mutant Oompa Loompa that escaped when Augustus Gloop got sucked into that pipe.
Also, thanks to Scythia and Fergie for the additional gnome hatred. :)
Now for something slightly different:
[Url="http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/09/25/fake-news-site-trolls-flat-earthers-with-story-claiming-donald-trump-has-gone-flat-earth/"]Who would have thought that individuals with such stellar critical thinking skills could be so easily fooled?
I would have thought they'd be horrified
I think they're eager for any scrap of validation.
Well I see everyone had a heated and healthily argumentative weekend (I always miss the best stuff during the weekends). What are all of your plans for debate-watching tonight? I plan on downing as much bourbon as possible while learning to play my new guitar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not completely open borders.
I said "every" person, but let me walk that back: Anyone under, say, 30, that is healthy and has no criminal record should be able to get a work visa. That work visa should then offer a path to citizenship, but a felony should result in deportation and cancellation of the visa.
We NEED healthy young people for our workforce. Let's make them legitimate, tax (and serve) them, and treat them like what 99% of them are: Good people.
(This should in NO way be read that I am anti-immigration. Immigration is the life-blood of the US. In every way this statement applies to immigrants as well.)
We HAVE healthy young people in our labor pool. If employers say they have jobs that "Americans" or "Millennials" are unwilling to do, they are LYING. The truth of the matter is they are UNWILLING to pay a competitive (with the market, not the industry) wage for those jobs. The answer isn't to flood the market with people willing to work for next to nothing, with no protections or benefits of any kind. The answer is for agra-business to pay a damn living wage to all their workers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I see everyone had a heated and healthily argumentative weekend (I always miss the best stuff during the weekends). What are all of your plans for debate-watching tonight? I plan on downing as much bourbon as possible while learning to play my new guitar.
Take a shot every time HC says "you know" and every time DT says "believe me." I expect to be taken to the hospital before the first hour runs out.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I see everyone had a heated and healthily argumentative weekend (I always miss the best stuff during the weekends). What are all of your plans for debate-watching tonight? I plan on downing as much bourbon as possible while learning to play my new guitar.Take a shot every time HC says "you know" and every time DT says "believe me." I expect to be taken to the hospital before the first hour runs out.
Take a shot every time Trump doesn't complete a sentence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take a shot every time Trump doesn't complete a sentence.Well I see everyone had a heated and healthily argumentative weekend (I always miss the best stuff during the weekends). What are all of your plans for debate-watching tonight? I plan on downing as much bourbon as possible while learning to play my new guitar.Take a shot every time HC says "you know" and every time DT says "believe me." I expect to be taken to the hospital before the first hour runs out.
I don't have that much booze.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take a shot every second, constantly, until you pass out. It's the only way to protect your brain cells.
I'm going to have Yidhra mentally take a drink every time Trump just kind of smirks and shrugs after insinuating something, or gets caught lying but decides he doesn't care. o wo/ Hopefully she'll still be reasonably sober at the end of the night.
We HAVE healthy young people in our labor pool. If employers say they have jobs that "Americans" or "Millennials" are unwilling to do, they are LYING. The truth of the matter is they are UNWILLING to pay a competitive (with the market, not the industry) wage for those jobs.
Actually, no. The problem is that the market wage for those jobs is not set by the "young Americans," but by where the existing labor pool -- all of it -- meets the demand for the job.
Americans, as you might expect, tend to have abilities that command a premium in the marketplace, and even when those abilities don't actually command a premium, there's often an expectation mismatch where the job-seekers believe they do. (I had a similar issue years ago, where I thought that a postgraduate degree would cover for a lack of Windows Office skills at a local temp shop. I was wrong, and didn't get hired.)
Two of those abilities are often (but not always) a high school degree and fluency in English; another, of course, is the ability to work legally in the States. If you have a job that does not require a high school degree and fluency in English, why overpay for someone overqualified?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take a shot every second, constantly, until you pass out. It's the only way to protect your brain cells.
Or you could just hang out and not watch it. That's my plan.
Not completely open borders.
I said "every" person, but let me walk that back: Anyone under, say, 30, that is healthy and has no criminal record should be able to get a work visa. That work visa should then offer a path to citizenship, but a felony should result in deportation and cancellation of the visa.
We NEED healthy young people for our workforce. Let's make them legitimate, tax (and serve) them, and treat them like what 99% of them are: Good people.
The American economy has always depended on having a marginalised underclass. We're just reshaping who comprises that undercclass.
Drah,
Some days I think we need different economic ideology. Then I realize people that aren't me probably wouldn't like it much.
Drah,
Some days I think we need different economic ideology. Then I realize people that aren't me probably wouldn't like it much.
we give you all our money is the current economic ideology it just has a different definition of you.
I've got wrestling to watch.Take a shot every second, constantly, until you pass out. It's the only way to protect your brain cells.Or you could just hang out and not watch it. That's my plan.
A pizza delivery guy and bad guitar music is not wrest... no wait. that might be wrestling. Never mind.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We HAVE healthy young people in our labor pool. If employers say they have jobs that "Americans" or "Millennials" are unwilling to do, they are LYING. The truth of the matter is they are UNWILLING to pay a competitive (with the market, not the industry) wage for those jobs.Actually, no. The problem is that the market wage for those jobs is not set by the "young Americans," but by where the existing labor pool -- all of it -- meets the demand for the job.
Americans, as you might expect, tend to have abilities that command a premium in the marketplace, and even when those abilities don't actually command a premium, there's often an expectation mismatch where the job-seekers believe they do. (I had a similar issue years ago, where I thought that a postgraduate degree would cover for a lack of Windows Office skills at a local temp shop. I was wrong, and didn't get hired.)
Two of those abilities are often (but not always) a high school degree and fluency in English; another, of course, is the ability to work legally in the States. If you have a job that does not require a high school degree and fluency in English, why overpay for someone overqualified?
That and we still have the heavily ingrained and toxic mindset of "This is why you complete high school/college, otherwise you'll end up in a place like this." So ingrained that we still have parents pushing it today with parents trying to scare their child while also shaming whatever customer service employee is unfortunately hostage to the spectacle.
We HAVE healthy young people in our labor pool. If employers say they have jobs that "Americans" or "Millennials" are unwilling to do, they are LYING. The truth of the matter is they are UNWILLING to pay a competitive (with the market, not the industry) wage for those jobs.Actually, no. The problem is that the market wage for those jobs is not set by the "young Americans," but by where the existing labor pool -- all of it -- meets the demand for the job.
Americans, as you might expect, tend to have abilities that command a premium in the marketplace, and even when those abilities don't actually command a premium, there's often an expectation mismatch where the job-seekers believe they do. (I had a similar issue years ago, where I thought that a postgraduate degree would cover for a lack of Windows Office skills at a local temp shop. I was wrong, and didn't get hired.)
Two of those abilities are often (but not always) a high school degree and fluency in English; another, of course, is the ability to work legally in the States. If you have a job that does not require a high school degree and fluency in English, why overpay for someone overqualified?
That is a contortion of the situation on the ground. The claim "unwilling to do this job" which is trumpeted by employers who state that they "need" immigration to fill their labor requirements is a lie. You CAN find people to do those jobs, and there are almost certainly unemployed/underemployed people in the near vicinity to your labor need. You just have to offer them a wage that exceeds the opportunity cost + their living expense.
They are trying to deny an adequate supply exists rather than pony up the cash that demand requires.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a contortion of the situation on the ground. The claim "unwilling to do this job" which is trumpeted by employers who state that they "need" immigration to fill their labor requirements is a lie. You CAN find people to do those jobs,
... but at a price that the employer is unwilling to pay (and often unable, given their profit margins and other costs). That's what "market" means. The buyer and the seller need to agree on a price.
Or to put it another way:
They are trying to deny an adequate supply exists rather than pony up the cash that demand requires.
There is not enough demand for labor at the price a lot of people want to be paid. Those people tend not to get jobs.
There is not enough supply for labor at the price a lot of people would like to pay. Those people tend not to find employees.
The "market" has found a relatively stable situation where the people who are willing to work for next-to-nothing can get jobs that pay exactly that next-to-nothing. Which is what the market does -- match buyers with sellers.
That is a contortion of the situation on the ground. The claim "unwilling to do this job" which is trumpeted by employers who state that they "need" immigration to fill their labor requirements is a lie. You CAN find people to do those jobs,... but at a price that the employer is unwilling to pay (and often unable, given their profit margins and other costs). That's what "market" means. The buyer and the seller need to agree on a price.
Or to put it another way:
They are trying to deny an adequate supply exists rather than pony up the cash that demand requires.There is not enough demand for labor at the price a lot of people want to be paid. Those people tend not to get jobs.
There is not enough supply for labor at the price a lot of people would like to pay. Those people tend not to find employees.
The "market" has found a relatively stable situation where the people who are willing to work for next-to-nothing can get jobs that pay exactly that next-to-nothing. Which is what the market does -- match buyers with sellers.
I go to the store to buy apples for my apple pie. Apples cost more than I would like to pay. I pay more for apples. That's how it works.
I don't get to say, "No one is willing to sell me apples!"
That is a lie, people ARE willing to sell me apples. There isn't an apple shortage. It isn't that there are no apples to buy.
Me demanding that apple farmers increase their production so that more people will sell me apples is a logical disconnect or disingenuous at best.
IE, the BUYER shouldn't get to control supply. The BUYER simply must pay whatever the market demands for the AVAILABLE supply. If they find that price unreasonable then they don't get to make pie.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the free market idea get's tossed out when it goes against business.
"Americans don't want to pick fruit so i have to hire illegal immigrants.
"You mean Americans don't want to pick fruit for 4 dollars an hour and have to work hard enough and dangerously enough to meet your quota's for the amount you're paying?
"Exactly.
"So why don't you listen to the free market, obey the law and pay them more?
"because that would cost me money! Thats not what the free market wants!
I go to the store to buy apples for my apple pie. Apples cost more than I would like to pay. I pay more for apples. That's how it works.
Sort of. Alternatively, you don't buy apples because you're unwilling to pay that price, and that's also how it works.
I don't get to say, "No one is willing to sell me apples!"
Sure you do, with the understanding that what you really mean is that they're not willing to sell you apples at a price you are willing to pay. I've seen lots of people say more or less exactly that thing, with that meaning.
IE, the BUYER shouldn't get to control supply. The BUYER simply must pay whatever the market demands for the AVAILABLE supply.
And that's not how the market works, either. The buyer is completely within his rights to say "I won't pay that much, but I'm willing to pay you <some smaller amount>." Some sellers will probably not accept that offer, others might. You might not get as good of apples as you would the other way. (I used to do this all the time at a farmer's market; I needed "jam quality" fruits and I could usually get them for a third to a quarter of the price for the display-quality fruit, because people wouldn't pay full price for obviously overripe, squashed, fruit.)
(I couldn't always get that. Any individual farmer might think that his apples will sell for full price, but someone else would grab the discount on the grounds that any sale is better than none. Which is to say, farmer A wouldn't sell me apples, but farmer B would.)
Now, if I need more jam-quality apples than people brought to the market that day, what can I do? Well, I can do without, for one. But I can also let everyone know that I need more apples at this low price and I'll make a standing offer to buy more apples if people are willing to meet the price. I'm not controlling supply, but I'm certainly making people aware that there is a demand for additional supply at this price that is going unmet.
... and if the reason that people are unwilling to meet my demand is because of some stupid third-party rule (the farmers' market has a rule that you can't bring more than 200# of produce, so they didn't bring the extra 100# they have at home), I/we/they can either petition to have the rule adjusted (which employers are asking for) or deal under the table (which also happens).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"So why don't you listen to the free market, obey the law and pay them more?"
Because "listen to the free market" and "obey the law" are often contradictory, to the point of mutually exclusive. As they are in this case.
There are people who are willing to work at the lower wage. There are people who want to hire at the lower wage. The free market says that they should be able to make a deal. The law says that they can't (whether that's from right-to-work limitations, or whether it's from minimum wage restrictions, it's still a third party saying that two consenting parties can't make the agreement they want to.)
The free market says "let them work." Listening to the free market cannot be reconciled with obeying the law in this instance,... which is one reason that few people actually like the free market.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the free market idea get's tossed out when it goes against business.
"Americans don't want to pick fruit so i have to hire illegal immigrants.
"You mean Americans don't want to pick fruit for 4 dollars an hour and have to work hard enough and dangerously enough to meet your quota's for the amount you're paying?
"Exactly.
"So why don't you listen to the free market, obey the law and pay them more?
"because that would cost me money! Thats not what the free market wants!
“I used to work at McDonald's making minimum wage. You know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? You know what your boss was trying to say? 'Hey if I could pay you less, I would, but it's against the law.'” ― Chris Rock
we give you all our money is the current economic ideology it just has a different definition of you.Drah,
Some days I think we need different economic ideology. Then I realize people that aren't me probably wouldn't like it much.
So you're suggesting you giving me money huh? Cool. Now I can pay my mom and buy my own place. :p ;)
Lots of complaining about free markets here. If you get a chance, talk to people who lived in the Soviet bloc about work, money and so on. It is often enlightening.
Generally, everyone had to work, and the state could often decide what you were supposed to do for a living. Every place they could stuff people into was full to bursting, like twenty-five people working in a small museum. Now, this would mean you didn't get much in the way of actual work... but you were forced to actually spend all the time there anyway. Also, the job didn't pay much, as in, literally not enough to survive on for your family.
What people did is pretty obvious. They used the time at work to sleep, so they were rested for the nights, when they participated in the cutthroat (and pretty much free) BLACK market, where they could both get money and the goods they needed to feed their families.
The choice is not between a free market and a regulated market, it's between a legal free market or a black free market.
Lots of complaining about free markets here. If you get a chance, talk to people who lived in the Soviet bloc about work, money and so on. It is often enlightening.
Generally, everyone had to work, and the state could often decide what you were supposed to do for a living. Every place they could stuff people into was full to bursting, like twenty-five people working in a small museum. Now, this would mean you didn't get much in the way of actual work... but you were forced to actually spend all the time there anyway. Also, the job didn't pay much, as in, literally not enough to survive on for your family.
What people did is pretty obvious. They used the time at work to sleep, so they were rested for the nights, when they participated in the cutthroat (and pretty much free) BLACK market, where they could both get money and the goods they needed to feed their families.
The choice is not between a free market and a regulated market, it's between a legal free market or a black free market.
Now, the former soviet block currently has some of the highest minimum wages in the world, and many of their economies are thriving.
Yes. They got rid of the forced labour situation, and things got much better, eventually. That shouldn't come as a surprise.
The thing is, a free market is not something we have any experience with. Regulations distort the market, making it less free, adding in various other types of incentives, and so on. The bad credit bundles of the 2008 bank crash would be a good example. I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.
In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.
As for minimum wages, there is a simple and brutal logic to them. A company forced to pay more than they would have to if they outsourced their production would outsource their production. In that situation, you have to either force the company to stay in the country (sound familiar?) or you have to make domestic workers more useful to the company somehow. It is not an easy question how to solve this.
I REALLY need to prove that there are a multitude of regulatory b#~@#&%$ around, thejeff? Really?