| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, most of your posts read more as a caricature of cynicism.
Like poes law totally isn't the guiding principle of humanity. Or whatever.
:)
11) Be swept into the dustbin of history.
That's the most likely outcome.
We used to talk about red states and blue states... the reality is that America is becoming a nation which blue urban areas surrounded by red rural populations that are finding more of their voice than ever.
My prediction is that Trump will win the next election with an even greater Electoral College margin.
I suppose it depends on what you consider a livable wage and what the minimum is supposed to provide for. According to MIT a living wage in Dallas would be $10.24 for a single adult, $21.80 for an adult with 1 child and $13.90 for a family...I'm not privy to the average operating cost of businesses in DFW (particularly with regard to employees) but it would be pretty astronomically high for the area. Plus with all of the talk of automation in this thread, I can't imagine companies not wanting to make areas like DFW, where the current minimum wage is at least livable, their testing grounds for eliminating a bulk of their workforce (automated menus are already starting to replace cashiers at fast food joints in the area, albeit slowly).I agree there's a difference, but does that mean $15 is good for San Fran, but too high for DFW or is it good for DFW, but too low for SF?A $15/hour minimum wage is reasonable at the state (or preferably local) level, but not necessarily at the federal level, which is what people tend to push for. After all, livable in San Francisco is very much different compared to what's livable in DFW, TX, just as an example.the problem is they've also drank their own koolaid. Lets get rid of the epa was supposed to be a bargaining chip for keeping regulations where they are instead of tightening them. Not something you actually did.That sounds like good reason to pick bartering levels you actually agree with, then, so the idea of only going to a $12 minimum wage to avoid seeming "extreme" doesn't actually interact with this concern. A $15 minimum wage is a reasonable standard, not an extremist bargaining chip. If we started "drinking the Kool-Aid" on that, all it would mean is we might get a livable minimum wage. So I guess I'm not seeing the connection to your concerns.
It definitely does depend on an individual's definition of "a livable wage". As an adult who's lived in Dallas on $7.25, I consider it to be livable. I certainly wouldn't characterize it as anything more than that, but that's what the minimum wage should provide for, in my opinion (I am aware that's not its original intent). I'm also wondering if those values are taking into account things like WIC, which would offset the cost of living for those who qualify.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "minimum wage" means people need to rely on government assistance, it means businesses are off-loading their costs onto taxpayers.
If "minimum wage" means people need to rely on government assistance, it means businesses are off-loading their costs onto taxpayers.
Well, I was referring to adults with one or more children when talking about government assistance. For a single adult in the area, minimum wage is livable without assistance.
Economic justice is a non-starter. ...Wait! Aren't you in Sweden?
"Take Sweden. The unionization rate is extremely high--more than 85 percent of the workforce enjoys the benefits of union organization and collective bargaining. Indeed, compared to the U.S., the Swedish labor movement is, across the board, much stronger, better organized and united.This strength is the key reason why Swedish workers were able to force the passage of ambitious reforms that benefit the working class as a whole. They include: free medical care coverage for all from cradle to grave; free tuition for university students; guaranteed free housing for all; subsidized childcare; paid parental leave (13 month leave at 80 percent pay); extensive unemployment benefits (including cash transfers as well as job training and retraining programs); generous pensions; provision for the disabled; and care for the elderly.
As a result of this, poverty rates in Sweden are very low compared to the U.S. This is largely because social democratic governments in Sweden were committed to ensuring full employment. For most of the 20th century, Sweden averaged around 2 percent unemployment--a shockingly low figure when compared to the U.S.
Income and wealth inequality are also much lower than in the U.S. This isn't just a Swedish thing--the same is true in most Scandinavian countries. Denmark, for instance, has the most equal distribution of income among all OECD countries and one of the lowest infant mortality rates. By contrast, the U.S. is the third most unequal and has the third highest rate of infant mortality.
I don't mean to imply that Sweden is some perfect paradise, but I would be thrilled to achieve half the advantages you have!
Yes. A lot of that is true. Guaranteed free housing certainly is not. Much of it is eroded by now: Pensions will not let you live on them. Universities, while free, rank lower and lower. The unions are mostly interested in high profile media cases. Etc. There are downsides too, of course, such as our massive tax rates. And here too, we have wealthy people not paying, and corrupt people making decisions. It is to be expected.
But that was not what I was saying. The term "economic justice" is either meaningless or has very different meanings. What do you mean by it, Fergie?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The really short answer (it's late here) is a system where the wealthy support the less fortunate, rather than the other way around.
The first step is a tax system where the poor pay little, the middle class pay a modest fee, and the rich pay a substantial percent. In theory we have this, but the reality is that the ultra wealthy have many ways to avoid taxation, or even have the government shoulder private expenses. A great first step would be tax investment income at a higher rate the income from work.
Next is serious regulation of financial markets. That is a pretty broad topic, but it requires real laws, AND enforcement. Financial dealings should be based on fair competition, not predator and prey.
No one should go hungry, be denied shelter, schooling, or access to basic healthcare. Water, communications, energy and to some extent food should be treated in many ways as utilities, and regulated for the public good.
Workers and the environment need to be protected. The country must be protected from financial sparring from other nations, and unfair competition.
That is what I think, but google is more succinct.
"Economic justice is a component of social justice. It's a set of moral principles for building economic institutions, the ultimate goal of which is to create an opportunity for each person to create a sufficient material foundation upon which to have a dignified, productive, and creative life beyond economics."
Okay... So you go for the "opportunity" paradigm. Meaning that someone who chose not to study, chose not to move to jobs, and so on has passed that opportunity?
If "minimum wage" means people need to rely on government assistance, it means businesses are off-loading their costs onto taxpayers.Well, I was referring to adults with one or more children when talking about government assistance. For a single adult in the area, minimum wage is livable without assistance.
But the point stands. If companies are allowed to pay employees wages so low that they qualify for government assistance, it means the government is subsidizing that business.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... with the Flynn resignation let's just recap a bit here.
We now know that;
- Flynn was an adviser to Trump's campaign
- Flynn lied. He not only spoke with Russian government contacts about US sanctions, but also indicated that they would be rolled back if Trump was elected
- Trump lied. Russia did intervene in the election on his behalf
- Trump lied, again. He knew about Flynn's discussion with the Russians because the Justice Department warned him that it could potentially be used to blackmail Flynn.
- Despite the possibility of Flynn having committed crimes and the Russians being able to blackmail him over this, Trump then appointed him National Security Adviser
- The GOP congress feels there is nothing here worthy of investigation... unlike that 'big' e-mail server scandal
So... with the Flynn resignation let's just recap a bit here.
We now know that;
- Flynn was an adviser to Trump's campaign
- Flynn lied. He not only spoke with Russian government contacts about US sanctions, but also indicated that they would be rolled back if Trump was elected
- Trump lied. Russia did intervene in the election on his behalf
- Trump lied, again. He knew about Flynn's discussion with the Russians because the Justice Department warned him that it could potentially be used to blackmail Flynn.
- Despite the possibility of Flynn having committed crimes and the Russians being able to blackmail him over this, Trump then appointed him National Security Adviser
- The GOP congress feels there is nothing here worthy of investigation... unlike that 'big' e-mail server scandal
Sadly, the least surprising bullet point is the last one.
But the point stands. If companies are allowed to pay employees wages so low that they qualify for government assistance, it means the government is subsidizing that business.If "minimum wage" means people need to rely on government assistance, it means businesses are off-loading their costs onto taxpayers.Well, I was referring to adults with one or more children when talking about government assistance. For a single adult in the area, minimum wage is livable without assistance.
Right, but at that point we're presented with a conundrum. Which is better (morally and effectively): forcing a company to pay all of its employees more because some of them are supporting children which they should or should not have probably had in the first place (raising the minimum wage), or subsidizing businesses who employ those people by providing government assistance while allowing them to continue paying the minimum living wage in the area so long as their employees agree to work for those wages?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those aren't the only two options.
Those aren't the only two options.
What other options are there? I ask out of genuine curiosity as this topic is far from those with which I'm most familiar (most of which seem to be verboten on this website...). As I see it, the options are: companies pay people more (either by choice or by force), the government assists those who don't make a livable wage with WIC and other similar programs, those people don't make a livable wage and then cease being living.
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?
And get to educate existing children, it would appear.
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?
No, unless your definition of "rich" is "being able to provide food, water, and shelter for the number of involved adults and children in a relationship".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?No, unless your definition of "rich" is "being able to provide food, water, and shelter for the number of involved adults and children in a relationship".
Reproductive control is available to both genders. If you can barely afford to feed, house and clothe yourself/yourselves, exercise the common sense to refrain from making any babies in the first place.
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?No, unless your definition of "rich" is "being able to provide food, water, and shelter for the number of involved adults and children in a relationship".Reproductive control is available to both genders. If you can barely afford to feed, house and clothe yourself/yourselves, exercise the common sense to refrain from making any babies in the first place.
Sure, for the case where people have children while they can barely provide for themselves and they do it by choice, then yes that's one of the instances where they probably should not have had a kid. As thejeff mentioned though, that's not always the case (people who previously had well-paying jobs getting fired and having to take up low-paying work for example), which brings us back to the options I previously listed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets also not forget that the same folks who are actively fighting against things like minimum wage increases also tend to be against sex education in schools or services that provide free birth control and such...
Hard for people who can't afford children to take control of their reproduction if denied the tools or knowledge to do so.
So... with the Flynn resignation let's just recap a bit here.
We now know that;
- Flynn was an adviser to Trump's campaign
- Flynn lied. He not only spoke with Russian government contacts about US sanctions, but also indicated that they would be rolled back if Trump was elected
- Trump lied. Russia did intervene in the election on his behalf
- Trump lied, again. He knew about Flynn's discussion with the Russians because the Justice Department warned him that it could potentially be used to blackmail Flynn.
- Despite the possibility of Flynn having committed crimes and the Russians being able to blackmail him over this, Trump then appointed him National Security Adviser
- The GOP congress feels there is nothing here worthy of investigation... unlike that 'big' e-mail server scandal
There are possibilities left out on that list. Such as Flynn promising that sanctions would be rolled back if the Russians helped Trump's election by hacking the Democrats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If "minimum wage" means people need to rely on government assistance, it means businesses are off-loading their costs onto taxpayers.
Walmart has people whose responsibilities include counseling their staff on obtaining food stamps.
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?
The typical response is that if you're working at a low wage job, you're obviously at an entry level job, and it's your fault if you haven't promoted yourself to a better job, which is when you should be popping kids, not before.
A eugenicist might say that since the rich are better at surviving the environment, we're doing the race a disservice by allowing inferiors to breed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That last has long been the most common - though it usually turns into "survive under horrific conditions with no hope of improvement" rather than actually dying quickly.Those aren't the only two options.What other options are there? I ask out of genuine curiosity as this topic is far from those with which I'm most familiar (most of which seem to be verboten on this website...). As I see it, the options are: companies pay people more (either by choice or by force), the government assists those who don't make a livable wage with WIC and other similar programs, those people don't make a livable wage and then cease being living.
The last is a fairly popular option to be wished on others. Many will happily condemn and imprison a food stamp recipient if they find out she did as much as go out to one movie in the previous year, or own a television set, or some second hand computer. Bill Clinton's "Workfare" frequently had people spending 80 hours of their lives in work and long distance commutes in order to collect their subsistence benefits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those aren't the only two options.What other options are there? I ask out of genuine curiosity as this topic is far from those with which I'm most familiar (most of which seem to be verboten on this website...). As I see it, the options are: companies pay people more (either by choice or by force), the government assists those who don't make a livable wage with WIC and other similar programs, those people don't make a livable wage and then cease being living.
Well, now you've subtly added a third option: choice. Before you said "force" them to pay more, or have government assistance. The third option is empowering workers to negotiate their wages.
You've also neglected a way of determining wages: collective bargaining. Instead of big government coming in and deciding what people should be paid, why not provide greater protections for workers to collectively bargain their own wages/benefits?
Bargaining is literally embracing market place rules. The past 30 years though the government has undermined labor's ability to bargain with their employers.
Union workers on average make more money and have more benefits than non-union workers. That means they're less likely to be on government assistance or at least use less of it.
You've also neglected a way of determining wages: collective bargaining. Instead of big government coming in and deciding what people should be paid, why not provide greater protections for workers to collectively bargain their own wages/benefits?
Bargaining is literally embracing market place rules. The past 30 years though the government has undermined labor's ability to bargain with their employers.
Union workers on average make more money and have more benefits than non-union workers. That means they're less likely to be on government assistance or at least use less of it.
Unfortunately America's policy of the last few decades under Presidents of both parties, has been that of undermining and destroying unions. Allowing new ones to form has been pretty much a non-starter.
It has gotten to the point that outside of public service, very few Americans enjoy the bargaining power of a union when it comes to negotiating a salary. For them, the minimum wage has been frequently the only backstop.
Because the real definition of a minimum wage is. "I'm paying you this much because the government won't allow me to pay you any less."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.
|
|
There are possibilities left out on that list. Such as Flynn promising that sanctions would be rolled back if the Russians helped Trump's election by hacking the Democrats.Though Flynn may have discussed such with Russia in his earlier contacts, the particular call in question was after the election and the sanctions in question were those Obama was imposing in response to the Russian election interference.
Right, I figured just the things we know were damning enough. What might have gone on that we don't know about is a whole other level of bad.
As for, 'the future of the Democratic party'... is there anyone here who is generally Democrat/liberal leaning who believes that after four years of Trump they won't be ready to vote for a Hillary Clinton... or a Bernie Sanders... or Joe Biden... Al Gore... Elizabeth Warren... Cory Booker... et cetera?
There are plenty of potential Democrat candidates that I do not like... but there aren't any that I like less than I do Donald Trump.
That IMO is the future of the Democratic party... and the same holds for 2018. Barring some miraculous transformation from 'Trump' to 'borderline acceptable person' everyone in the country who leans left is going to be horrified and motivated to do something about it. There are many more of us than there are right leaning people. Ergo, things will swing back the other way. At least for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.
And what about Bill Clinton? It was under his watch the egregious "Workfare" rules were implemented. He signed them into law, and pretty much backed them through the process. He also implemented NAFTA and what had been up to that time the most pervasive forms of internet and email snooping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for, 'the future of the Democratic party'... is there anyone here who is generally Democrat/liberal leaning who believes that after four years of Trump they won't be ready to vote for a Hillary Clinton... or a Bernie Sanders... or Joe Biden... Al Gore... Elizabeth Warren... Cory Booker... et cetera?
I am. I don't think an ounce of Trump's base is going to change their vote no matter how bad things get during the next four years. Trump will present to them a host of scapegoats to blame things on, and they'll swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
The problem is that the Democrats don't have a mono-culture base the way the Republicans do. To try to use the same methods that Trump did will literally destroy what's left of the party.
All the names you quoted above, with the exception of Sanders, are nothing more than continuations of the Democratic status quo which has brought us to where we are. As for Sanders himself, the corporate masters who fund the Democratic Party aren't going to let the Party nominate him, no matter what the consequences might be.
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?No, unless your definition of "rich" is "being able to provide food, water, and shelter for the number of involved adults and children in a relationship".Reproductive control is available to both genders. If you can barely afford to feed, house and clothe yourself/yourselves, exercise the common sense to refrain from making any babies in the first place.
as someone who went to school during the first few years condoms were readily available and free, I can tell you that there is something to be said for getting what you pay for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for, 'the future of the Democratic party'... is there anyone here who is generally Democrat/liberal leaning who believes that after four years of Trump they won't be ready to vote for a Hillary Clinton... or a Bernie Sanders... or Joe Biden... Al Gore... Elizabeth Warren... Cory Booker... et cetera?I am. I don't think an ounce of Trump's base is going to change their vote no matter how bad things get during the next four years. Trump will present to them a host of scapegoats to blame things on, and they'll swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
The problem is that the Democrats don't have a mono-culture base the way the Republicans do. To try to use the same methods that Trump did will literally destroy what's left of the party.
All the names you quoted above, with the exception of Sanders, are nothing more than continuations of the Democratic status quo which has brought us to where we are. As for Sanders himself, the corporate masters who fund the Democratic Party aren't going to let the Party nominate him, no matter what the consequences might be.
Sanders won't run in 2020.
Trump's base won't change. Trump's base isn't enough to win. It's those who either swung from Obama to Trump or who came out for Trump when they hadn't previously or who weren't inspired enough by Clinton to bother, but might be horrified enough by the reality of Trump.
A 9/11 event will seal the deal though. After the next one happens, people all over the place will be looking for the strong man to lead them. And that's when the lead of Trump's Mussolinism turns to gold, especially if it happens within the next 2 years so that Trump, (and Fox as well as the whitebreads of this country) can pin the blame on Obama.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?No, unless your definition of "rich" is "being able to provide food, water, and shelter for the number of involved adults and children in a relationship".
that is rapidly becoming the definition of rich as the middle class vanishes.
If the system cannot produce anything but minimum wage jobs, those jobs should be able to support a family. if that means that the single basement dweller can afford to dine out or buy a new car, the millionaire owner can go cry in their slightly smaller private island.
I don't know. It sounds like some here will still be on the "destroy the Dems, build a pure third party" bandwagon.
I saw an interview with Comrade Kshama on Al-Jazeera that our party ranks have increased by 30% since the election.
Meanwhile, our "let's-reform-the-Democrats" trendjumper rivals over at DSA are reporting a growth spurt taking them up to 15k.
Anyway, I prefer to call it jumping on the socialism train.
I saw an interview with Comrade Kshama on Al-Jazeera that our party ranks have increased by 30% since the election.
It means you got 5 more people to join? :)
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.And what about Bill Clinton? It was under his watch the egregious "Workfare" rules were implemented. He signed them into law, and pretty much backed them through the process. He also implemented NAFTA and what had been up to that time the most pervasive forms of internet and email snooping.
I just don't know what to say. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who's high on cocaine.
If the system cannot produce anything but minimum wage jobs, those jobs should be able to support a family.
By "system", are you referring to the US job market as a whole? If so, then that's not the case, nor does it appear to be the case any time soon. Is the gap between the middle and upper classes becoming larger? Absolutely. That does not equate to there suddenly being no non-minimum wage jobs, however. Bringing it back to my original point though, would it not be better to decide the minimum wage at the state and local levels more intensely, and have the federal minimum wage be determined by the lowest minimum wage among the states? In this way, minimum wages could be tailored to suit varying climates (see the earlier comparisons of DFW to San Francisco) as they currently are, but have the federal minimum wage be automatically adjusted based on the changes throughout the country.
I just don't know what to say. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who's high on cocaine.
Drivin' that train...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for, 'the future of the Democratic party'... is there anyone here who is generally Democrat/liberal leaning who believes that after four years of Trump they won't be ready to vote for a Hillary Clinton... or a Bernie Sanders... or Joe Biden... Al Gore... Elizabeth Warren... Cory Booker... et cetera?
Before W Bush, I would have said yes, now I would say it depends.
Hillary and Gore are longshots, but I don't think most democrats learned anything from 2016. Biden and Booker are very establishment, but don't have the baggage of a Clinton type. The would likely win. Warren could be the golden candidate, but I suspect she is just another shill for big business. Sanders has the credibility, but I think he will be too old by then.Thejeff and others (not to mention a lifetime of voting third party) have done a good job of convincing me that it is nigh impossible to get even close to the presidency. On rare occasions you could get a governor, mayor, etc. but most of the highest positions are not accessible.
I think the Democrats house of cards have come tumbling down, and the party is ripe for a new direction (a Socialist new direction!). They can either take that new direction, or get the hell out of the way for a new party. It might take a little while for that transition to happen, but either way, the neoliberal wing of the Democrats needs to be destroyed.
|
|
A 9/11 event will seal the deal though. After the next one happens, people all over the place will be looking for the strong man to lead them. And that's when the lead of Trump's Mussolinism turns to gold, especially if it happens within the next 2 years so that Trump, (and Fox as well as the whitebreads of this country) can pin the blame on Obama.
That has certainly been my biggest concern.
However, thus far, team Trump really doesn't appear competent enough to pull something like that off... or even make it that long without turning on each other like a pack of rabid dogs. In fact... the knives have already come out... more than once. First Christy, now Flynn. Who do you suppose will get thrown under the bus next? My money is on Spicer... he has the impossible job of insisting that the idiotic is reasonable... and Trump will blame him when it doesn't work.
I think the other pitfall for the democrats is running a kryptonite candidate like a John Kerry, or Mitt Romney. In Kerry's case it was being a hero of the Viet Nam war resistance, who supported war in Iraq. Romney was the anti-Obamacare candidate who started Romneycare. In both cases the candidates were walking contradictions.
Perez seems to be that kind of candidate - a Labor Secretary who supports the TPP. Ugh.
Well, at least the democrats learned their lesson about party insiders committing to a candidate, well before the vote... Just kidding, they learned nothing!