2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea.  It answers part of the problem (the market's inability to correct itself any longer), but how do you incentivize people to do the tasks that still need to be done?  Are there graduated rates of compensation if you are, say, a doctor vs. a mechanic?  

 

Perhaps I'm taking this idea too far into hypotheticals, but I'm curious.

My opinion is that minimum income is just that, minimum. Some supplement that income with "gig jobs" while others take on more meaningful (and well-paying) jobs that require more eduction and/or training.

 

People still need things to do with their time and if the pay is good enough, they'll take on some unenviable tasks to supplement their income.

 

Dunno. All of this requires such a drastic rethinking of how we live our lives - much less how society itself operates - that it may be too big to ever be implemented.

[Mike Sixel]

Of course, we'd have to figure out how to stop health companies and education companies from just taking all that money thru insane prices. That's tricky....

[TheLeviathan]

Well there is also the fact that one flat minimum income is hard to calculate.  We aren't Sweden, where costs are relatively even no matter where you go.  What it costs for education and healthcare and basic needs in Wyoming vs. New York are not even remotely the same.  

 

The basic premise I understand, I don't mind uncoupling employment and healthcare.  I do worry about education and the ramifications there.

 

We need to improve education, but I think that happens by uncoupling property taxes and school funding.   And then by uncoupling government loans from colleges. I'm not sure there has to be a centralized fund for all of that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Of course, we'd have to figure out how to stop health companies and education companies from just taking all that money thru insane prices. That's tricky....

Indeed it is.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well there is also the fact that one flat minimum income is hard to calculate.  We aren't Sweden, where costs are relatively even no matter where you go.  What it costs for education and healthcare and basic needs in Wyoming vs. New York are not even remotely the same.  

 

The basic premise I understand, I don't mind uncoupling employment and healthcare.  I do worry about education and the ramifications there.

 

We need to improve education, but I think that happens by uncoupling property taxes and school funding.   And then by uncoupling government loans from colleges. I'm not sure there has to be a centralized fund for all of that.

 

Nope, everyone gets the same money. If you choose to live where it is more expensive, that's your issue. Consequences.....

[Craig Arko]

The pace of technological change is accelerating. Whether we're ready for it or not. One result of that will be a lot more job displacement.

 

What's the plan?

[Mike Sixel]

 

The pace of technological change is accelerating. Whether we're ready for it or not. One result of that will be a lot more job displacement.

What's the plan?

 

Let rich people get all the money from working so hard owning businesses.....

[Craig Arko]

Let rich people get all the money from working so hard owning businesses.....

And the rest of us; soylent green.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Dude seriously what on earth are you talking about.

 

Couple things: as a small business owner you shouldn't be paying ALL of your employees minimum wage anyways, ideally you are already paying your employees a somewhat LIVABLE wage to begin with.

 

 

Huh?  You clearly lack an understanding of how business works, by the way in the examples I used a non minimum wage was used.  Living wage is such a silly concept as it has very little to do with reality.  It's simply a rough estimate of what it would take an adult to function and has nothing to do with the value of labor.  I get it you don't care you are in favor of shutting down Main street.  We can start every response with insults or we can actually discuss economics and reality. 

 

This is a simple question, I know people refuse to answer questions but if you want to continue the debate answer this question?  If nobody found a wage under a proposed minimum wage agreeable would we need minimum wage laws? 

[mikecgrimes]

 

"Farmer". That's probably meant to evoke an image of several dozen acres being worked under wholesome good-ol'-fashioned family values. I'm pretty sure that's not how modern agribusiness operates anymore, or at least the families that do fit your profile are nearly irrelevant to feeding this nation. Unless maybe dad being a farmer and getting up at 4 means he's working for a conglomerate.

 

The world of Adam Smith and Wealth of Nations in the 1700s was relatively little removed from biblical times of extreme scarcity, where it was necessary for almost the entire population to work extremely long hours just to survive. Free market philosophy today, at least as usually discussed, has progressed very little from images of gruff but kindly shopkeepers, burly blacksmiths, and lots and lots of farmers struggling just to make ends meet.

 

The industrial revolution brought about at least two big changes, economies of scale, and logistics. The reach of a creative person was no longer limited to what he could build himself, or to the geography he happened to be born in. Marx and others attempted to put this new development into the previous context but they had no way of anticipating how rapidly things were still going to change further.

 

As scarcity began to be less of an overriding concern, we had the luxury to relieve certain groups of people from labor. The idea of the elderly "retiring" became a concept beyond one's family simply looking after you. Child labor was now viewed as repugnant. Leisure time for everyone became a norm when the 40-hour workweek was embraced. We're now at the cusp of something more profound.

 

Today, we are not yet at a mythical day when one person can provide the needs of all of humanity at the touch of a button. That person would simply own everything and the rest of us would survive at his discretion, at least under free-enterprise. But, it is true that, at least in the US and similar countries, we have moved in that direction, as our well-being no longer depends on every able-bodied adult working. A vast variety of middle class jobs have gone the way of the dodo bird - for example management roles are much fewer in the presence of enterprises like Walmart and Amazon.com which leverage the management they have much better - or in the financial world the same capitalist activities go on but are conducted by fewer and fewer people. It's almost surely better for society as a whole - it frees large numbers of people to do something better, although we have some trouble in saying exactly what. But it also results in "your services are no longer required" as well as a greater and greater concentration of wealth. Yet the system still makes it a moral imperative, "work, or you don't eat" - or at least, pure free marketers wish to make you feel guilty about accepting government assistance.

 

None of the economic theories being discussed in this election cycle really tackle how a moral society handles the concept of plenty, as opposed to scarcity. It's still too new to us as a species. Ultra-large corporations scare me just as much as Big Gubmint, and in this world everything of economic importance has become big. Meanwhile the dominant view of capitalism* in the US works basically only for the special case of a quaint Amish community (that's meant jokingly since the Amish have collectivist tendencies).

 

Arguments about minimum wage levels are unsolvable in this environment; I don't claim to have an answer. I'm convinced that pure market forces are not the answer. They can't be ignored either.

 

^{* For a good reminder of the difference between capitalism and free-enterprise, just watch a rerun of Shark Tank sometime.}

 

This is the kind of discussion on economics I can get behind.  This is a problem nobody discusses, and even fewer care to solve. We have so many solutions to things that aren't real problems and so little concern for real problems that could emerge. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If nobody found a wage under a proposed minimum wage agreeable would we need minimum wage laws? 

No, of course not... But that only works in the abstract. Given the option of "starve" or "be underemployed", most people will choose whatever option isn't "starve".

 

In reality, a single person cannot fairly negotiate against a monolithic organization. It's why unions were created in the first place. A group of people can negotiate, yes... But we've spent decades vigorously union-busting the point unionization is almost an afterthought in this country.

 

And consumers don't give a ****, either through apathy or because they can't afford anything better. The cheapest product wins.

 

It's a race to the bottom. Lower wages beget lower prices beget more competition to force lower wages and fewer hours.

 

If we want to deregulate business, so be it... but then we must bring back the unions and aggressively punish any business that evens hints at union-busting.

 

Pick your poison. We can't have it both ways. Businesses can't be deregulated without worker protection being put in place somewhere in the chain. Someone has to balance power and the individual cannot do it by him or herself.

 

Anti-unionization is one of the GOP platforms that most pisses me off. Okay, so you want to ease regulations on businesses. Sure, whatever. But then you must allow the other side a fair chance to fight for their own rights and the free market solution to business deregulation is unions.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Back to election talk.

 

Cruz's campaign told Iowa voters Ben Carson had left the state and taken a leave of absence so "tell your friends not to vote for Carson".

 

Ick. Just ****ing ick. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike the man more but there you go. He did it.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/ted-cruz-voicemails-ben-carson-exclusive-audio/

 

 

 

[inaudible]…from the Ted Cruz campaign, calling to get to a precinct captain, and it has just been announced that Ben Carson is taking a leave of absence from the campaign trail, so it is very important that you tell any Ben Carson voters that for tonight, uh, that they not waste a vote on Ben Carson, and vote for Ted Cruz. He is taking a leave of absence from his campaign. All right? Thank you. Bye.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Back to election talk.

 

Cruz's campaign told Iowa voters Ben Carson had left the state and taken a leave of absence so "tell your friends not to vote for Carson".

 

Ick. Just ****ing ick. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike the man more but there you go. He did it.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/ted-cruz-voicemails-ben-carson-exclusive-audio/

 

Thou shalt not lie.......

[TheLeviathan]

Apparently they are justifying it with a twisted interpretation of a CNN report.  

 

So flimsy.  Cruz is the worst.  I'd rather have Trump.

[Mike Sixel]

His new social media ad, since down......mis-spelled "Country".....Clearly he didn't write it, but come on man.

[Badsmerf]

I've known for a while Cruz was going to win here. He is the type of religious zealot the GOP in the state vote for. Its embarrassing. I can't eloquently convey the amount of ignorance in the base here. The best thing that could happen for politics here, is if Iowa is no longer the first vote. I did not experience the Cruz campaign lying at my location... I didn't care to listen to "speeches" by the campaign captains either. Cruz will be exposed. Side not. A fellow voter told me he didn't even hear the Democrat candidates talk about God once. I couldn't hold me tongue. I asked why that matters and if mentioning God makes any difference if the message was to alienate a group of people. No answer. I later got to have a nice discussion with my wife about bigotry the GOP expresses toward other religions... especially Atheists. Its almost as bad as if you're gay... Fun times voting in Iowa. 

[mikecgrimes]

 

Back to election talk.

 

Cruz's campaign told Iowa voters Ben Carson had left the state and taken a leave of absence so "tell your friends not to vote for Carson".

 

Ick. Just ****ing ick. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike the man more but there you go. He did it.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/ted-cruz-voicemails-ben-carson-exclusive-audio/

 

It was reported on CNN 15 minutes prior to the caucus.  At caucuses you are supposed to convince people to support your candidate, that's what a caucus is.  I guess Carson didn't drop out he can go get 4% in New Hampshire and then figure out if he's still running.  Carson campaign has been a mess and that's why this happened.  Of course Cruz supporters pounced on this why wouldn't they?  Bottom line Carson has no chance and Cruz does and if Carson has a problem with that he should start acting like a real candidate.  It's disgusting that Carson and Trump are trying to exploit this situation.  Of course Trump would but it is clear Carson has no ethics.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I've known for a while Cruz was going to win here. He is the type of religious zealot the GOP in the state vote for. Its embarrassing. I can't eloquently convey the amount of ignorance in the base here. The best thing that could happen for politics here, is if Iowa is no longer the first vote. I did not experience the Cruz campaign lying at my location... I didn't care to listen to "speeches" by the campaign captains either. Cruz will be exposed. Side not. A fellow voter told me he didn't even hear the Democrat candidates talk about God once. I couldn't hold me tongue. I asked why that matters and if mentioning God makes any difference if the message was to alienate a group of people. No answer. I later got to have a nice discussion with my wife about bigotry the GOP expresses toward other religions... especially Atheists. Its almost as bad as if you're gay... Fun times voting in Iowa. 

 

I'm a bigot because I have no respect for atheists?  That's neat.

[DaveW]

I'm a bigot because I have no respect for atheists? .

big·ot

ˈbiɡət/

noun

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm a bigot because I have no respect for atheists?  That's neat.

Yes.

[Squirrel]

I'm a bigot because I have no respect for atheists? That's neat.

You're a bigot if you are intolerant of others with different beliefs and want to impose laws that discriminate or exclude those who have these beliefs, yes. It's not about respect, it's about tolerance, but why would you disrespect anyone you didn't know anyway?

[mikecgrimes]

 

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

 

Not respecting someone and not tolerating them are two different things.  The word bigot gets thrown around way to much.  I think that's neat.

[Craig Arko]

I'm a bigot because I have no respect for atheists?  That's neat.

To be honest, you're not on my Christmas card list, either.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm a bigot because I have no respect for atheists? That's neat.

So you don't respect people because they have different beliefs that don't affect your life in any way, shape, or form.

 

You're rad.

 

Funny, I'm an atheist who has absolutely *no problem* with people who believe in God. Many of my good friends are religious. They're great people.

 

Again, you're rad.

[mikecgrimes]

 

So you don't respect people because they have different beliefs that don't affect your life in any way, shape, or form.

You're rad.

Funny, I'm an atheist who has absolutely *no problem* with people who believe in God. Many of my good friends are religious. They're great people.

Again, you're rad.

 

Is that like saying I have a black friend?  I guess I've met to many people who think being an atheist means they only have to be decent people when they want to.  Agnostics are great people but people who think they have all the answers and the answer is everything is meaningless bother me, sorry.

[biggentleben]

I saw someone on my Facebook time line swayed today by the fact that Michael Tait of the Christian music group Newsboys endorsed Ted Cruz to become a Cruz supporter today. Of course, my interactions with Tait would put Cruz and he in similar company as far as slimy say-one-thing-about-God-do-another-thing-to-defy-those-words sorts of guys, but it did make a statement to me about how sad the GOP platform has become. I'm a Christian unapologetically, but if the best candidate is an agnostic, an athiest, or *gasp* a Muslim, they'll get my vote. I want the best leaders and the best people in Washington, not simply people who tell me they believe similarly to me. Jimmy Swaggart proclaimed similarly as well, and Fr. Curtis Wehmeyer preached from the pulpit on Sundays as well, but that doesn't mean I'd want either representing what a Christian is and should be to the world. Most of the people claiming Christ in the political landscape are doing such for political gain, and that's the most sickening part of it all.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree Ben, Rubio is probably the worst offender at that phony religious stuff this time around.  Carson is obnoxious about it too, but I think he's always been that way as opposed to Rubio.  (Who is laying it on really thick)

 

And Cruz goes without saying, the guy is just a fraud through and through.

[DaveW]

the answer is everything is meaningless bother me, sorry.

We believe in nothing Lebowski!

[Brock Beauchamp]

Is that like saying I have a black friend? I guess I've met to many people who think being an atheist means they only have to be decent people when they want to. Agnostics are great people but people who think they have all the answers and the answer is everything is meaningless bother me, sorry.

My best friend of 25 years is a strict Catholic.

 

So yeah, he's my black friend.

 

If you want to get down to it, you'd classify me as an agnostic. But I don't believe in agnosticism - if you question god's existence, you're an atheist because questioning faith equals no faith - but that's an entirely different discussion.

 

But that's not my point, now is it?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Is that like saying I have a black friend?  I guess I've met to many people who think being an atheist means they only have to be decent people when they want to.  Agnostics are great people but people who think they have all the answers and the answer is everything is meaningless bother me, sorry.

Few atheists believe that everything is meaningless. Rather that it is people and acts that imbue life with meaning as opposed to god or whatever.  I mean why are atheists liberal? Why do they care about other people? If your view of them were true they'd be anarchists and wouldn't fight for healthcare and civil rights and poverty etc.  

 

I think far too often religion is a get out of morality-free card.  If you're a good person don't invoke religion, put your money where your mouth is and act like a good, selfless person.