Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!
I'm really pleased with what Sanders has said so far.
tylerdurden, improving everyone's lot in life is worth trying. If you feel otherwise, I'm sorry.
Tom_Reingold said:
I'm really pleased with what Sanders has said so far.
tylerdurden, improving everyone's lot in life is worth trying. If you feel otherwise, I'm sorry.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” - Frederic Bastiat
TylerDurden said:
Tom_Reingold said:“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” - Frederic Bastiat
I'm really pleased with what Sanders has said so far.
tylerdurden, improving everyone's lot in life is worth trying. If you feel otherwise, I'm sorry.
Nonesense.
tylerdurden, I used the word "if" because I don't want to put words in your mouth. If you want to express your opinion, please do. Please don't presume to know mine. That quote does not resemble me at all.
That quote from about 200 years ago (is a liberal from 200 years ago the same as a liberaltoday?) is more aptly applied to modern politicians and pundits in general than socialists.
But I guess if someone said it, it must be true.
ParticleMan said:
That quote from about 200 years ago (is a liberal from 200 years ago the same as a liberaltoday?) is more aptly applied to modern politicians and pundits in general than socialists.
But I guess if someone said it, it must be true.
It is so spot on. The Law is a great book too. Easy read. Straight to the point.
He was a liberal. I think there was someone lamenting the liberal term being stolen. The liberal term was stolen a long time ago.
Tom_Reingold said:
tylerdurden, I used the word "if" because I don't want to put words in your mouth. If you want to express your opinion, please do. Please don't presume to know mine. That quote does not resemble me at all.
I don't think the key to improving people's lives is making them more expensive to employ. I think that is likely to have the exact opposite effect.
TylerDurden said:ParticleMan said:It is so spot on. The Law is a great book too. Easy read. Straight to the point.
That quote from about 200 years ago (is a liberal from 200 years ago the same as a liberaltoday?) is more aptly applied to modern politicians and pundits in general than socialists.
But I guess if someone said it, it must be true.
So spot on about Bernie Sanders? About Socialists? Or about everyone who tries to make a political point?
He was a liberal. I think there was someone lamenting the liberal term being stolen. The liberal term was stolen a long time ago.My point was that Bernie Sanders is no more representative of the people Bastiat was talking about than a modern liberal is of Bastiat.
TylerDurden said:
I don't think the key to improving people's lives is making them more expensive to employ. I think that is likely to have the exact opposite effect.
As I have pointed out, there are millions of people who can't work any harder than they already do. They are doing honest work that needs to be done. They are being paid inadequately. And if I'm reading you right, you are saying pay raises would worsen their lives. Do I have that right?
Perhaps you're just saying that it would increase unemployment. Are you? You know, this has been disproven, don't you?
The quotation is a retort to a criticism by Socialists of whomever the speaker means by we. First I do not know who "we" is. Second, I have not heard any modern socialist level that criticism.
So perhaps you, Tyler, can speak to the specific issue of the government mandating paid vacations for workers. And rest assured that I will not accuse you of being against vacations altogether.
ParticleMan said:
TylerDurden said:So spot on about Bernie Sanders? About Socialists? Or about everyone who tries to make a political point?ParticleMan said:It is so spot on. The Law is a great book too. Easy read. Straight to the point.
That quote from about 200 years ago (is a liberal from 200 years ago the same as a liberaltoday?) is more aptly applied to modern politicians and pundits in general than socialists.
But I guess if someone said it, it must be true.
He was a liberal. I think there was someone lamenting the liberal term being stolen. The liberal term was stolen a long time ago.My point was that Bernie Sanders is no more representative of the people Bastiat was talking about than a modern liberal is of Bastiat.
He is spot on when he points out that when we discuss politics, people assume that if you don't want the government to do something that means you don't think that thing should be done.
Tom_Reingold said:
TylerDurden said:
I don't think the key to improving people's lives is making them more expensive to employ. I think that is likely to have the exact opposite effect.
As I have pointed out, there are millions of people who can't work any harder than they already do. They are doing honest work that needs to be done. They are being paid inadequately. And if I'm reading you right, you are saying pay raises would worsen their lives. Do I have that right?
Perhaps you're just saying that it would increase unemployment. Are you? You know, this has been disproven, don't you?
Please show me where this has been dis-proven. Its economic law. If it doesn't increase unemployment, then why not $20,000 an hour? Beamers for everyone!
LOST said:
The quotation is a retort to a criticism by Socialists of whomever the speaker means by we. First I do not know who "we" is. Second, I have not heard any modern socialist level that criticism.
So perhaps you, Tyler, can speak to the specific issue of the government mandating paid vacations for workers. And rest assured that I will not accuse you of being against vacations altogether.
What if a worker decides they'd rather have a pay increase than the vacation. This should be illegal then?
TylerDurden said:
Please show me where this has been dis-proven. Its economic law. If it doesn't increase unemployment, then why not $20,000 an hour? Beamers for everyone!
I'll see if I can dig up the recent articles, but seriously, have you been missing them?
And of course there are limits. Another strawman argument is where I said we can raise the minimum to any level with no ill effect. Nice job putting words in my mouth again. No increase in the minimum to date has resulted in problematic unemployment.
Are you familiar with the argument that it increases the amount of money in the bottom strata? Do you know the argument that points out that those at the bottom tend to spend all their money, which will improve things for many?
Did you know that the economies are doing well at the higher-minimum side of some state and city borders?
I'm familiar with the basic law of supply and demand, and I fully comprehend that you are saying that higher wages leads to shortages of jobs. I get that. I'm saying that the economies laws are more complex than that. Raising minimum wage raises the value of people's labor.
And with the ultra rich getting ultra richer, this is a wealth transfer. We have allowed it, and we can reverse it. It would be beneficial, and it would be moral.
As I have pointed out previously, Bernie is not a Socialist nor an Independent. He describes himself as a a Social Democrat, in line with the Scandinavian approach.
This is what real 'Socialists' think of him.
http://socialistworker.org/2015/06/11/a-vermont-socialists-guide-to-sanders
I intend to vote for him if he is on the ballot for the primaries.
Tom_Reingold said:
TylerDurden said:I'll see if I can dig up the recent articles, but seriously, have you been missing them?
Please show me where this has been dis-proven. Its economic law. If it doesn't increase unemployment, then why not $20,000 an hour? Beamers for everyone!
And of course there are limits. Another strawman argument is where I said we can raise the minimum to any level with no ill effect. Nice job putting words in my mouth again. No increase in the minimum to date has resulted in problematic unemployment.
Are you familiar with the argument that it increases the amount of money in the bottom strata? Do you know the argument that points out that those at the bottom tend to spend all their money, which will improve things for many?
Did you know that the economies are doing well at the higher-minimum side of some state and city borders?
I'm familiar with the basic law of supply and demand, and I fully comprehend that you are saying that higher wages leads to shortages of jobs. I get that. I'm saying that the economies laws are more complex than that. Raising minimum wage raises the value of people's labor.
And with the ultra rich getting ultra richer, this is a wealth transfer. We have allowed it, and we can reverse it. It would be beneficial, and it would be moral.
I read these articles. They are incorrect. They are propaganda. The reason to raise the minimum wage is political, not economical. You are going to hurt the little guy by doing this.
Sure. You can raise the minimum wage by small amounts and track certain measurements and ignore others and say "see no problem". There is the seen and the unseen. You are missing the unseen.
And I have to say. I'm growing tired of your attitude. The fact that people so strongly advocate policies that are harmful without taking the time to understand them is irresponsible.
You tell me that you are familiar with the basic laws of supply and demand, and then you tell me that they don't matter. What? Some study obfuscates the truth and you fall for it because you want to believe it. Good for you.
How do you suppose we reverse the wealth transfer to the rich? I know for a fact that you support the very policies that aggravate wealth polarization. I even explained that to you & you responded with something like you just felt like inflation was good.
The fact is that these policies that feel good to you, only hurt those you are trying to help. So, I'm the bad guy because I don't buy into this fantasy that we can engineer the economy. Those engineering the economy have no clue what they are doing. They have engineered the economy into a depression with record debt levels, business start ups at all time lows, polarized wealth, asset inflation everywhere, perhaps the biggest bond bubble in the history of man kind. But, let's trust them on this one even though it defies logic. Because it feels good? I don't think so.
You are the enemy of the poor. If you want to help the poor, be a man and go help them yourself. Don't think you're helping them by pushing the command and control economy. Because you're not.
TylerDurden said:
LOST said:
The quotation is a retort to a criticism by Socialists of whomever the speaker means by we. First I do not know who "we" is. Second, I have not heard any modern socialist level that criticism.What if a worker decides they'd rather have a pay increase than the vacation. This should be illegal then?
So perhaps you, Tyler, can speak to the specific issue of the government mandating paid vacations for workers. And rest assured that I will not accuse you of being against vacations altogether.
No. And that is not the choice. OTOH many companies insist that their employees take vacations, because sometimes it reveals that said employee has been stealing or that said employee is not needed. I worked for an organization that had an employee who accumulated so much unused vacation time that we were afraid that if he quit and demanded the pay due for that time we would go bankrupt.
Why not $2.00 or 20 cents? People should be paid enough to afford the basic necessities and maybe a little more.
As long as there are children with not enough to eat perhaps there should not be Beamers for anybody.
TylerDurden said:
Please show me where this has been dis-proven. Its economic law. If it doesn't increase unemployment, then why not $20,000 an hour? Beamers for everyone!
I think because $2 and 20 cents are well below the market for just about all labor. Thus, these would basically be equivalent to having no minimum wage. But hey. I'm game for that!
If you think I support a command and control economy, you have misunderstood me deeply.
If you see my viewpoints and opinions as an "attitude," you would be better off not replying to me. But your use of that word makes me wonder if you just don't like me.
If a policy that I have supported has not worked out as well as I had hoped, I'd like to know which policy and what you THINK I thought of it. Remember, you might think you know what I think, but you have proven yourself wrong a few times lately. Perhaps I am not good at expressing my opinion. There is always that chance. But in any case, tell me what unintended consequence has happened from policies I have supported. I can think of several. I read about OSHA's blunders a book called The Death Of Common Sense or some title close to that. Unintended consequences happen often.
I've been self employed for quite a few years and before that I'd returned to grad school. The last time I worked for an employer was in the early 90's. When did the minimum 2 weeks paid vacation and at least one week paid sick leave go away?!? or am I misunderstanding this issue?
Surya said:
I've been self employed for quite a few years and before that I'd returned to grad school. The last time I worked for an employer was in the early 90's. When did the minimum 2 weeks paid vacation and at least one week paid sick leave go away?!? or am I misunderstanding this issue?
They were never law. They were just common practices for many employers. I don't know for sure, but I believe fewer people get these benefits nowadays.
Tom_Reingold said:
Surya said:They were never law. They were just common practices for many employers. I don't know for sure, but I believe fewer people get these benefits nowadays.
I've been self employed for quite a few years and before that I'd returned to grad school. The last time I worked for an employer was in the early 90's. When did the minimum 2 weeks paid vacation and at least one week paid sick leave go away?!? or am I misunderstanding this issue?
Then I don't see anything wrong with making it a law. In fact mandate one more weeks!. Human Resources as they so love to refer to people are not tools to be worked into the ground until they break only to be replaced by another "resource". IMHO
Tom_Reingold said:
Surya said:They were never law. They were just common practices for many employers. I don't know for sure, but I believe fewer people get these benefits nowadays.
I've been self employed for quite a few years and before that I'd returned to grad school. The last time I worked for an employer was in the early 90's. When did the minimum 2 weeks paid vacation and at least one week paid sick leave go away?!? or am I misunderstanding this issue?
Wait. I thought employers would only provide compensation if coerced by government?!?!
Tylerdurden, you should recall that some employers (but not all)didn't start paying employees until the law required them to do so.
Boring. One absurdly extremist argument after another. "Why not $20,000 an hour," "Employers would never dream of slave labor only provide compensation if coerced."
You ask above, "How do you suppose we reverse the wealth transfer to the rich?" The answer is simple: the exact opposite of what we did to begin it. We slashed the top marginal rates, and now we need to steeply hike them again.
What else, after all, will stop the obscene accumulation of wealth that will eventually turn us into a plutocracy?
Tom_Reingold said:
Tylerdurden, you should recall that some employers (but not all)didn't start paying employees until the law required them to do so.
Two words: Unpaid internship.
Yeah, I know: great way to get job experience. Just like sharecropping was a great way to learn agriculture.
Tom_Reingold said:
If you think I support a command and control economy, you have misunderstood me deeply.
If you see my viewpoints and opinions as an "attitude," you would be better off not replying to me. But your use of that word makes me wonder if you just don't like me.
If a policy that I have supported has not worked out as well as I had hoped, I'd like to know which policy and what you THINK I thought of it. Remember, you might think you know what I think, but you have proven yourself wrong a few times lately. Perhaps I am not good at expressing my opinion. There is always that chance. But in any case, tell me what unintended consequence has happened from policies I have supported. I can think of several. I read about OSHA's blunders a book called The Death Of Common Sense or some title close to that. Unintended consequences happen often.
I might think what you think. Hmmmm.
tylerdurden, improving everyone's lot in life is worth trying. If you feel otherwise, I'm sorry.
Anyhoo, I have no personal issues with you. Other than the fact that I'm basically showing you how things work and you keep implying I'm just some big old meany.
So, at the risk of being presumptuous I'm going to list some policies I feel are harmful to the poor and you tell me which ones you actually disagree with:
- Compulsory education determined by Address: Education in this country is an absolute embarrassment. I don't have link handy, but I read 46% of the country believes the world is less than 10,000 years old. 46%!
- Department of Education: See above. What a absolute train wreck of a policy
- Federal Reserve System: Redistribute from the middle & poor and give to the rich & well connected. But don't worry. It's for your own good. Remember just a little inflation is good. So, prices must always go up! So, you wanna save. Here are some 0% interest rates! Good luck with that!
- Welfare Laws: Incentives to not work. To not form traditional family units. Born into poverty? Stay in poverty!
- Policies that make it more expensive/risky to hire: ACA/Minimum Wage/Social Security/Job Protections for Groups: Having trouble getting that first job? Never fear, the government is here to provide disincentives to hire you!
- Drug Laws: Let's make felons out of individuals displaying behavior that is expected by the human animal. And remember non-violent criminal who never hurt anyone but yourselfe, when you're out click that felon box when you apply for a job!
That's off the top of my head.
Tom_Reingold said:
Tylerdurden, you should recall that some employers (but not all)didn't start paying employees until the law required them to do so.
Which employers are you talking about. And if you are referring to slavery then I'm afraid I'm going to have a difficult time taking you seriously.
tom said:
Tom_Reingold said:Two words: Unpaid internship.
Tylerdurden, you should recall that some employers (but not all)didn't start paying employees until the law required them to do so.
Yeah, I know: great way to get job experience. Just like sharecropping was a great way to learn agriculture.
Well one could go to college & get out with 6 figures of debt, and no skills. They have the right to an Education after all!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sanders-pushes-to-give-americans-a-paid-vacation/ar-BBl03rA