EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2017
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28654 Posts
On May 22 2015 23:35 Falling wrote: The strange thing about the X, Y, Z jobs 'are supposed to be for high school students' argument is how does one know what job is supposed to be for anything? Because in the last 40 years or so a whole lot of jobs have been downgraded to 'high school jobs' whereas the population of high school students have plummeted after the Baby Boom. For instance, grocery stores and parks used to be a for life job. Once they got deunionized, they suddenly become 'high school jobs. So high school jobs have massively increased at the same time as the number of actual high school students have plummeted. In the case of Parks, the starting wage is a whole 75 cents greater than it was 40 years ago- and you are just as likely to find ex-pulp mill workers and ex civvy military base guys as you are college students working there. In the case of grocery stores, Superstore sets the trend due to its dominance- it they can depress wages, there's no hope that a small grocery store can offer a higher wage and turn profit. Could a sliding scale minimum wage work? Create categories for the number of employees so that the greater the number, the higher the minimum wage? This at least gets around the problem of minimum wage increases hurting the already slim profit margins of small businesses. my own 'brainstorming' regarding this subject as of late has kinda made me think that yeah, some type of sliding scale minimum wage is the way to go - but rather, it might be best to go the opposite way about it. Like, instead of saying minimum wage has to be this and this high, we instead say that CEO pay can only be x times entry level pay (where x increases as the size of the company increases). This is just like, low-level brainstorming and I'm certain there are multiple issues that need to be addressed for this to be viable, but to me, in theory, if it were possible to implement, it's a suggestion that would tackle multiple issues at once. Firstly, low level employees get some sense of accountability, where their pay is tied with company performance (If a CEO wants to increase his own pay following successful years, pay would have to increase on every level. ) Secondly, it removes the 'this-inequality-is-offensive-at-a-gut-level' pay difference (assuming we don't ever permit 'x' to be 600 or anywhere close to it). damn I have to go or I'dkeep expanding!! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On June 02 2015 03:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: my own 'brainstorming' regarding this subject as of late has kinda made me think that yeah, some type of sliding scale minimum wage is the way to go - but rather, it might be best to go the opposite way about it. Like, instead of saying minimum wage has to be this and this high, we instead say that CEO pay can only be x times entry level pay (where x increases as the size of the company increases). This is just like, low-level brainstorming and I'm certain there are multiple issues that need to be addressed for this to be viable, but to me, in theory, if it were possible to implement, it's a suggestion that would tackle multiple issues at once. Firstly, low level employees get some sense of accountability, where their pay is tied with company performance (If a CEO wants to increase his own pay following successful years, pay would have to increase on every level. ) Secondly, it removes the 'this-inequality-is-offensive-at-a-gut-level' pay difference (assuming we don't ever permit 'x' to be 600 or anywhere close to it). damn I have to go or I'dkeep expanding!! I think a step that could happen before setting off the alarm bells for conservatives with specters of big government might just be to legislate/organize in order to just have the information easily accessible. Just let people see which companies do what for/to their employees. Similar to the BBB, but with a focus on the employer-employee relationships. Let people rank companies based on the difference between their best compensated workers and the others. Let them argue who's compensation structure is better and so on, but just focus on getting the information out for easy access and comparisons. GlassDoor is a crowdsourced version in the rudimentary stages of what I am talking about as an example. I don't have a lot of faith in consumers in general, but the idea that people could know the higher prices or less frills actually means the company is compensating their employees better, I believe, could begin to influence people's shopping behaviors enough to make at least part of the difference up. So that maybe there would be more social consequences to dropping a price $0.50 as a result of 'hiring' Chinese slaves. I like the idea of capping pay, not at an arbitrary amount of money, but as a ratio to how one pays the people who make their profit possible. But the words 'government mandated cap on pay' are enough to get most conservatives to stop listening no matter how reasonable the point, so I like the idea of doing it separate from the government and not mandating the actual pay (just the disclosures) as a way to actually arrive at something that could happen. | ||
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On June 02 2015 03:45 KwarK wrote: Information and increased choice doesn't necessarily lead to openness or increased rationality. In many areas, for example 401k plans, the sheer amount of choice is used as a weapon by marketers to skin laymen. Excess information can be weaponised. Yeah I can't argue with the risks, not sure it would be worse than it is currently though. Companies have a slew of data at their disposal when considering what wage to pay, the employee on the other hand, has almost no idea what a fair wage for their work would be based on the market or anything outside of their subjective pov. People could look at two companies side by side and see where the resources go within the company and decide if they want to work for/purchase from the one where the top guy makes 50x what the average worker does or the company where they make 500x as much as the average worker (or whichever metrics matter to an individual. Maybe they want to work for a company that spends more on R&D, or someone else likes companies who use a lot of resources for building employees from within, etc..) Like I said, I don't have a lot of faith in 'consumers' (I miss when people were people/customers/patrons) so I acknowledge the very real risks you are talking about, I just don't see how it makes anything much worse than it is now, but I see a lot of potential upside. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 02 2015 02:04 zlefin wrote: I can't count your opinion due to your long history of hating on Obama regardless of the situation. I'll keep an eye on what others are saying though. You may want to hide your cluelessness on the subject a little better. I'm not being a partisan by saying that he's disengaged. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 02 2015 01:58 Gorsameth wrote: Sadly im about to go out so I cant read the piece but the quote of it doesn't actually offer a middle ground. It says relying on other armies isn't working, which is true. So that means the US would have to do it themselves and that once again comes back to long term occupation to effect lasting cultural chance. I'll read the full piece when I get back in a few hours because it is something that actually interest's me. I dont see how you can defeat a threat like ISIS without long term occupation. Actually, Foreign Policy had a very interesting article a couple weeks where someone made an argument in favor of the West pursuing imperialist policies again in the Middle East. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
Rand is going to be able to score a ridiculous amount points by dangling the idea that the IRS 'scandal' is nothing compared to what a Hillary Clinton's NSA could do. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 02 2015 05:35 xDaunt wrote: You may want to hide your cluelessness on the subject a little better. I'm not being a partisan by saying that he's disengaged. I'm just as well informed as you; and you are being rude. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic. The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough. That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote: That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with. As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss). Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.) The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50 The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position. From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
Five years of consecutive growth and people forget the lessons. Another clusterfuck of subprime financing in the making. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 02 2015 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: From what I saw Hannity and the activist are two sides of the same coin. Your criticisms of him aren't really wrong, but I think they apply equally to the activist as well. There's also a completely different level of expectations for "professionals" and non-professionals. If an activist is brought on to a show, you expect them to be outspoken and passionate, if a little lacking in details. You expect the host to create a solid discourse from people not used to being on air. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On June 02 2015 07:17 KwarK wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/billvisnic/2015/06/01/car-sales-are-booming-and-youre-paying-the-price/ Five years of consecutive growth and people forget the lessons. Another clusterfuck of subprime financing in the making. Also reminds me of Healthcare and Tuition increases. With insurance substituting for debt in the healthcare market. You might call it a bubble, or systemic increase, in "pseudo-necessities". | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On June 02 2015 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: There's also a completely different level of expectations for "professionals" and non-professionals. If an activist is brought on to a show, you expect them to be outspoken and passionate, if a little lacking in details. You expect the host to create a solid discourse from people not used to being on air. Yeah really. Besides that he's like 20 years his senior, and has been on television for over a decade. Hannity knew/knows exactly what he is doing and it is totally intentional and serves no purpose but to obfuscate and enrage. The criticisms don't apply equally for those reasons and many more. But it's really besides the point anyway. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21661 Posts
On June 02 2015 05:44 xDaunt wrote: Actually, Foreign Policy had a very interesting article a couple weeks where someone made an argument in favor of the West pursuing imperialist policies again in the Middle East. Right had time to actually read it. It makes good points, the Middle East is a mess and current tactics are not working (enough). And i certainly don't disagree with their points, aside from maybe that Iran isn't as much of a threat. But what the article lacks is what we should do instead. Using other peoples armies in the region isn't working, Because either they don't want to resolve it (Saudi's) or they are incapable of doing so (Syria/Rebels/Iraq). However using the US army to strike and then leave wont work either. ISIS will go to ground like it has done several times before and come back once the US leaves again. Yet long term occupation is not politically viable. It is imo a problem with no real acceptable solution. No matter what option you pick, it may well be a bad choice. As for my opinion on imperialist policies. If we ignore the local politics and go by what is best for the West? Yes occupying and reforming the region is probably the best long term solution. Education the population, instil them with Western ideals and morality over the course of several generations while building a viable social and political infrastructure. The same thing can be said for large parts of Africa. The place is a mess and shows no signs of improving. However Imperialist policies are about what would be best for us. Not what would be best for everyone, and it sure doesn't respect the autonomy of those on the receiving end. It is a theoretic solution that will probably never see practical implementation (and maybe that is for the best, plus we'd probably fuck it up somewhere along the way anyway) | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21661 Posts
On June 02 2015 07:17 KwarK wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/billvisnic/2015/06/01/car-sales-are-booming-and-youre-paying-the-price/ Five years of consecutive growth and people forget the lessons. Another clusterfuck of subprime financing in the making. People were already forgetting the lessons 2 days after it happened. Welcome to Capitalism, where all that matters is getting the $ at any cost. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 02 2015 08:54 Livelovedie wrote: Transparently allowing employees to see other employees compensation within the same company would go a long way to reducing inequality. For the first time, employees would be able to rationally argue what they should be paid by having the same information the employer has. The social stigma exists because people realize they are paid too much, subconsciously, or not paid enough. It's not really as simple as that. If you knew your coworker got a substantial raise, more often than not the reaction would be "why didn't I get one as well", and not "that worker must've earned it". It breeds jealousy and hostility in the work place, and adversely hurts the employees that are actually putting in more effort or doing better work (which is often one of the legitimate complaints about current unions). With that said, that's assuming that people who are paid more have legitimately earned it, as opposed to other factors like who is better at schmoozing, or negotiated better at contract signing, or knows people in management, etc. Or when companies are actually penny-pinching and try to push the less assertive employees to be paid at the bottom line. | ||
| ||
