|
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. |
On July 11 2013 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:55 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way. Those subsidies go the walmart's employees, not walmart... Those subsidies allow WalMart to pay much lower wages than other firms. They go to WalMart. WalMart pays similar to the retail average. Assume you're right - then let's get rid of all welfare, it just goes to big companies after all 
Well the point of welfare is to help people who don't have incomes. If people have jobs but still need welfare, you can't deny that there's something grossly wrong with the system. It's dumb that these subsidies are just used to justify stupidly low wages. But just because welfare is being abused by corporations doesn't mean we should get rid of it. We need to examine why it's so abuseable.
|
On July 11 2013 04:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:08 cLutZ wrote:On July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite? Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad. Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit? Uhh. No I mean at their expense. Republicans win politically if the implementation of Obamacare screws up. They care more about that than the people it would affect. Are you being snarky? Because I don't get it.
Snarky? No I am being logical. Preventing the implementation of a terrible bill is a benefit to the public. Even Obama is delaying implementation in an attempt to prevent a bad 2014.
|
On July 11 2013 06:17 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:55 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way. Those subsidies go the walmart's employees, not walmart... Those subsidies allow WalMart to pay much lower wages than other firms. They go to WalMart. WalMart pays similar to the retail average. Assume you're right - then let's get rid of all welfare, it just goes to big companies after all Well the point of welfare is to help people who don't have incomes. If people have jobs but still need welfare, you can't deny that there's something grossly wrong with the system. It's dumb that these subsidies are just used to justify stupidly low wages. But just because welfare is being abused by corporations doesn't mean we should get rid of it. We need to examine why it's so abuseable.
The system used to be sit and home and collect welfare. Now it's work, and if it's not enough, collect welfare. That's a better deal for all.
Some jobs just don't pay much. It doesn't mean that welfare drove those wages lower.
|
On July 11 2013 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:17 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:55 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way. Those subsidies go the walmart's employees, not walmart... Those subsidies allow WalMart to pay much lower wages than other firms. They go to WalMart. WalMart pays similar to the retail average. Assume you're right - then let's get rid of all welfare, it just goes to big companies after all Well the point of welfare is to help people who don't have incomes. If people have jobs but still need welfare, you can't deny that there's something grossly wrong with the system. It's dumb that these subsidies are just used to justify stupidly low wages. But just because welfare is being abused by corporations doesn't mean we should get rid of it. We need to examine why it's so abuseable. The system used to be sit and home and collect welfare. Now it's work, and if it's not enough, collect welfare. That's a better deal for all. Some jobs just don't pay much. It doesn't mean that welfare drove those wages lower.
The system was never sit at home and collect welfare. It was look for a job and collect welfare until you find one. That's a huge difference.
|
On July 11 2013 06:28 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 06:17 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:55 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size?
[quote]
That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way. Those subsidies go the walmart's employees, not walmart... Those subsidies allow WalMart to pay much lower wages than other firms. They go to WalMart. WalMart pays similar to the retail average. Assume you're right - then let's get rid of all welfare, it just goes to big companies after all Well the point of welfare is to help people who don't have incomes. If people have jobs but still need welfare, you can't deny that there's something grossly wrong with the system. It's dumb that these subsidies are just used to justify stupidly low wages. But just because welfare is being abused by corporations doesn't mean we should get rid of it. We need to examine why it's so abuseable. The system used to be sit and home and collect welfare. Now it's work, and if it's not enough, collect welfare. That's a better deal for all. Some jobs just don't pay much. It doesn't mean that welfare drove those wages lower. The system was never sit at home and collect welfare. It was look for a job and collect welfare until you find one. That's a huge difference.
It's an exaggeration but that's one of the reasons why we had welfare reform in the 90's.
|
On July 11 2013 06:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, do you really think Wal-Mart needs you to stand up for them? I always find it strange that people feel this intense desire to defend multi-billion dollar corporations like this. They have lawyers and lobbyists. They don't need you, too.
Or do you actually think Wal-Mart can't take the profit hit and small businesses wouldn't have more trouble?
Sorry to so annoy you by defending things you hate so very, very sincerely.
What that has to do with anything is a mystery, though. Wal-Mart's need or lack of need of defenders relevance: zippidee doo-dah.
It's weird how people like you say things like "do you actually think Wal-Mart can't take the profit hit" as if business has an obligation to take a profit hit because social justice. Business is under no obligation to make less money by sacrificing at your altar to placate you as if you're some angry god.
Wal-Mart should pay more in wages and should also not raise prices or cut employee hours or lay off employees because they're bad for not paying more and if they have to take smaller profit so what they don't need that much profit.
When and where, precisely, were you or anyone given the right to determine when a person or business makes 'too much' money and can 'afford' to take a hit?
Uhh. No I mean at their expense. Republicans win politically if the implementation of Obamacare screws up. They care more about that than the people it would affect.
Are you being snarky? Because I don't get it.
Democrats win politically if they can get poor low-information (aka stupid) voters to believe that if they vote Democrat there will be a never-ending stream of redistributed wealth placed into their pockets in ever-increasing amounts. Democrats care more about that than the larger number of people it would negatively affect.
Obamacare is the signature achievement of the Democratic party of the first 25 years of this century, barring a proletarian revolution that liberates the masses and brings Glorious Communism in 2022. They wanted, it, they got it. Out of 220ish Republicans in the entire Congress at the time, both houses, something like 3 voted for it. Obamacare is the Democratic Party, if it sucks hard, hey, maybe you should have read the bill to find out what was in it before you passed it.
KlondikebarThe system was never sit at home and collect welfare. It was look for a job and collect welfare until you find one. That's a huge difference.
Don't know where you got this idea but the system has been sit at home and collect welfare for a long time now. Attempts to make actually looking for work a requirement have been strenuously resisted by Democrats at every time. Some states have such requirements and many don't, and the federal government certainly no longer does. Plus all the categories of welfare recipients like single mothers who absolutely do not need to be seeking work to qualify and never have. Or the explosion in SSI and SSDI claims (and rolls since approvals are up in huge numbers as well) by people who are most definitely not disabled, just unable to find work. Once being paid social security disability money, it has been shown that it is very unlikely that any but a small percentage of these people will ever re-enter the workforce. They become a permanent dependent class. This is the general pernicious and insidious effect long-term, no obligations welfare has on recipients.
There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this country on welfare who could work but don't because they have adapted their lives to getting by comfortably on welfare, and in many cases of course welfare represents a step up in their income and quality of life. But they are a drain on the Treasury and not really contributing to the economy or to their own betterment. Human beings need to work, if they physically and mentally are capable.
Your knowledge of the welfare system is very limited. It isn't some harsh system where the government is checking up on you all the time and you have to be cracking trying to find a job. Basically if you meet the very easy to meet requirements you can get many different kinds of welfare payments and services indefinitely.
101 million Americans being fed wholly or partially through SNAP benefits. 1/3 of the country, at the least, getting some kind of government welfare. This is not healthy for a nation particularly one without a history of such gross government incompetence. 101 million people on food stamps is a complete failure by the government to provide economic policies of growth and stability. If Barack Hussein Obama wants everybody to contribute their fair share or whatever lie he's telling today to fool gullible people into thinking he's not some elitist corporate flunky, fine, while he wines and dines with GE and Hollywood and Google and Apple and all the other 'progressive' corporations and powerful people and lambastes corporate fatcats who don't agree with him. But it's not getting the job done, and it's kind of hard to say that the Republicans aren't letting you do anything when you're running trillion-dollar deficits every year. Blame Bush and take out 2009, that's still about 4 trillion in new deficit from 2010-now by Obama and it's not his fault that 101 million people are getting government food money?
A welfare system that is necessary for so many people is a glaring beacon of a failed economy.
|
There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this country on welfare who could work but don't because they have adapted their lives to getting by comfortably on welfare, [...]
Is there any data which would suggest that, or are you just guessing numbers?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 11 2013 06:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, do you really think Wal-Mart needs you to stand up for them? I always find it strange that people feel this intense desire to defend multi-billion dollar corporations like this. They have lawyers and lobbyists. They don't need you, too.
Or do you actually think Wal-Mart can't take the profit hit and small businesses wouldn't have more trouble? Sorry to so annoy you by defending things you hate so very, very sincerely. What that has to do with anything is a mystery, though. Wal-Mart's need or lack of need of defenders relevance: zippidee doo-dah. It's weird how people like you say things like "do you actually think Wal-Mart can't take the profit hit" as if business has an obligation to take a profit hit because social justice. Business is under no obligation to make less money by sacrificing at your altar to placate you as if you're some angry god. Wal-Mart should pay more in wages and should also not raise prices or cut employee hours or lay off employees because they're bad for not paying more and if they have to take smaller profit so what they don't need that much profit. When and where, precisely, were you or anyone given the right to determine when a person or business makes 'too much' money and can 'afford' to take a hit? Show nested quote +Uhh. No I mean at their expense. Republicans win politically if the implementation of Obamacare screws up. They care more about that than the people it would affect.
Are you being snarky? Because I don't get it. Democrats win politically if they can get poor low-information (aka stupid) voters to believe that if they vote Democrat there will be a never-ending stream of redistributed wealth placed into their pockets in ever-increasing amounts. Democrats care more about that than the larger number of people it would negatively affect. Obamacare is the signature achievement of the Democratic party of the first 25 years of this century, barring a proletarian revolution that liberates the masses and brings Glorious Communism in 2022. They wanted, it, they got it. Out of 220ish Republicans in the entire Congress at the time, both houses, something like 3 voted for it. Obamacare is the Democratic Party, if it sucks hard, hey, maybe you should have read the bill to find out what was in it before you passed it. Show nested quote +KlondikebarThe system was never sit at home and collect welfare. It was look for a job and collect welfare until you find one. That's a huge difference. Don't know where you got this idea but the system has been sit at home and collect welfare for a long time now. Attempts to make actually looking for work a requirement have been strenuously resisted by Democrats at every time. Some states have such requirements and many don't, and the federal government certainly no longer does. Plus all the categories of welfare recipients like single mothers who absolutely do not need to be seeking work to qualify and never have. Or the explosion in SSI and SSDI claims (and rolls since approvals are up in huge numbers as well) by people who are most definitely not disabled, just unable to find work. Once being paid social security disability money, it has been shown that it is very unlikely that any but a small percentage of these people will ever re-enter the workforce. They become a permanent dependent class. This is the general pernicious and insidious effect long-term, no obligations welfare has on recipients. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this country on welfare who could work but don't because they have adapted their lives to getting by comfortably on welfare, and in many cases of course welfare represents a step up in their income and quality of life. But they are a drain on the Treasury and not really contributing to the economy or to their own betterment. Human beings need to work, if they physically and mentally are capable. Your knowledge of the welfare system is very limited. It isn't some harsh system where the government is checking up on you all the time and you have to be cracking trying to find a job. Basically if you meet the very easy to meet requirements you can get many different kinds of welfare payments and services indefinitely. 101 million Americans being fed wholly or partially through SNAP benefits. 1/3 of the country, at the least, getting some kind of government welfare. This is not healthy for a nation particularly one without a history of such gross government incompetence. 101 million people on food stamps is a complete failure by the government to provide economic policies of growth and stability. If Barack Hussein Obama wants everybody to contribute their fair share or whatever lie he's telling today to fool gullible people into thinking he's not some elitist corporate flunky, fine, while he wines and dines with GE and Hollywood and Google and Apple and all the other 'progressive' corporations and powerful people and lambastes corporate fatcats who don't agree with him. But it's not getting the job done, and it's kind of hard to say that the Republicans aren't letting you do anything when you're running trillion-dollar deficits every year. Blame Bush and take out 2009, that's still about 4 trillion in new deficit from 2010-now by Obama and it's not his fault that 101 million people are getting government food money? A welfare system that is necessary for so many people is a glaring beacon of a failed economy.
Tell us what will fix the situation. What's going to create jobs? What's going to ensure that people can afford to live without welfare? Because as you said yourself, Wal-Mart has no need to worry about social justice.
Do we need to give Wal-Mart more money and cut their taxes? Will the world get better then?
I also like your political narrative. Nice to know that the democratic voters are all just people who have no ideals greater than the potential of welfare. Fits in with the equally true reality that republican voters just want to live under biblical law with government structured similarly to Iran.
You're fantastic.
|
United States43510 Posts
wow, DEB just went off the deep end
|
Hearing the left in these debates makes me think Walmart is a corporation dedicated to charity not to earning money for its shareholders. It's supposed to engage in charity to pay workers, not just any pay, but MORE than it is currently? I'm with DeepElemBlues, it's like some looneys out there are only concerned with what profit hits they think is acceptable for a company, an acceptable hit.
The wonderful welfare reform that Republicans stuffed down Clinton's throat in the 90's changed it more from the sit-and-collect-welfare to job-search and work out of welfare. We'd do well to examine how healthy it is to have a tax system where only 49% of Americans pay an income tax (2009) and a steady 27%+ receive means-tested poverty payouts. I mean, I keep hearing government cheering increased enrollment in food stamp programs. Is this really something to pat ourselves on the back on, like every one is somebody who qualified a while ago but hadn't heard, and not representative of an economy struggling?
I hope the intellectually honest amongst us will remember what healthcare is like today, with all its expenses and availability, and be able to compare it to healthcare going out to 2020. To not accept excuses that we couldn't have predicted this or dealt with that if things do take a turn for the worse. If enrollment in policies offered through exchanges go as the administration hopes, this new law will not undergo substantial revisions back to how it was. Then you'll be stuck. If it happens to be a boon to the availability of health care and the true costs of it, I'll eat my words like the rest of my conservative/tea party buddies.
|
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here.
|
On July 11 2013 07:32 Danglars wrote:
Blahblahblah, companies should be able to pay whatever they want because I believe in the free market religion where competition makes everything turn out fine except for instances where there is no competition (less jobs than people, sound familiar?) or instances where the company has a ridiculous amount of power over the worker and the worker has no way to leverage power(government, union) over the company. Rising wages alongside inflation?????? OVER MY DEAD BODY YOU COMMUNIST SCUM!!
There's a lot of people on our welfare system and I think that's bad. I believe we should cut all the welfare programs and see how magically the economy will become a beacon of hope and social justice for the whole world to see. Once these people realize that they need to get off their entitled asses they will go to the newly created jobs which will solve all the problems these people were having with buying food and living in non-cardboard boxes. How will these be created? It's simple: we apply a flat fair tax at about 10% (1/3rd of our current effective tax rate so it will make jobs open up 3x as fast) and cut the corporate tax rate and capital gains taxes to 0. "How does this help me?", you might ask. Well, in the obvious case of Wal-Mart, what will happen is that Wal-Mart will be able to better saturate the U.S. market. Now, you'll be able to work at two stores full-time instead of just one, thereby doubling your income to twice what it was before, and still having 8 hours left in each 24 hour cycle to do whatever you want.
I hope the people who blindly agree with me will remember that healthcare now is going to be just as shitty in 8 years, because the only thing the democratic and republic parties are willing to do together is run this country into the ground.
Therefore vote Rick Perry
P.S.
I share my name with the iconic greedy Baron from the count of Monte Christo, so nobody knows whether or not to take me seriously
I support this message.
|
On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here.
The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is capitalism" and then assign the ills to capitalism. The reality is we are quite far from capitalism, and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where the government involvement is heaviest.
|
On July 11 2013 08:09 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is capitalism" and then assign the ills to capitalism. The reality is we are quite far from capitalism, and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where the government involvement is heaviest.
The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is big government" and then assign the ills to "big government". The reality is we are quite far from a socialism style "big government", and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where private interest and the public good are most commonly at odds.
|
On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here.
It is mostly about the invisible hand but I think most conservatives would also argue that it is about giving people what they deserve.
There's no doubt that conventional economics says that minimum wages and welfare hurt employment because it forces employers to overpay low-level workers and it gives people an incentive to not work. And this kind of incentive hobble people's motivation. There seems to be a substantial attitude of poor people saying "I don't want to find work because then I'll lose my welfare". Also, people are driven by necessity. If we cut stopped giving food stamps out altogether, honestly how many people do you think would starve to death? Even going back to the Great Depression before virtually any welfare, the number is probably in the teens. The idea is that we should let people take care of themselves.
As for corporate rights, it's an exaggeration to say that conservatives think there should be absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice. We can discuss whether there is too much regulation and too much dumb regulation, but nobody wants to go back to the wild west except by comparison to now.
How can it not suck? I think the response would be that if all these individuals unleashed their basic potential, the economy would grow and thus not suck. People would work hard and eventually get what they're worth. We should be a society that if you want to work hard, you can do that and earn lots of money. If you don't want to work hard, then you can do that and you earn very little.
Personally, I'm pretty mixed. I think there is too much dumb regulation but when Republicans talk about stripping regulation, it seems that sometimes they want to throw out the baby with the bath water. But I think this is the way they would debate the issue.
EDIT: Also, I might paraphrase Milton Friedman here. Liberals think a very strong government can control and check corporate power. But that almost never happens. Instead, corporations co-opt a strong government and use it even more to their advantage, mostly at the expense of workers and citizens. When you talk about strong government, you're taking very much for granted that we'll always have a certain kind of benevolent government. And it's funny that this thread has people who support a much stronger government even as they complain endlessly about lobbying.
|
On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here.
Generally speaking, the right wants to replace welfare with work and incentives for work (ex. EITC).
If you look at the Wal-Mart situation, the company has a slight negative impact on nominal wages and a large positive impact on real wages. Unintentionally the company is, in the words of Obama's top adviser, "a progressive success story."
|
On July 11 2013 07:16 KwarK wrote:
wow, DEB just went off the deep end
That's what happens when you imply a corporate shill is a corporate shill. They get pissed off.
I actually think his response is pretty telling. The answer to most of his rhetorical questions is "democracy." We get to determine your tax rate and what the minimum wage will be. Government is supposed to be a voice for the people, not the corporations.
|
On July 11 2013 08:09 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is capitalism" and then assign the ills to capitalism. The reality is we are quite far from capitalism, and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where the government involvement is heaviest.
So if government left these sectors completely alone, they would fix themselves so that living conditions would improve. Apart from the fact that capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. Slavery is the ideal condition for capitalism. This should be common sense. The cheapest worker that's still alive and able to do work is the best one for capitalism. Hence why the market doesn't give a shit about wage workers: there's always more of them and they're already a captive audience. There aren't magic jobs happening that get rid of unemployment and stimulate competition between companies for labor which would increase the pay of wage workers.
|
On July 11 2013 08:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:09 cLutZ wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is capitalism" and then assign the ills to capitalism. The reality is we are quite far from capitalism, and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where the government involvement is heaviest. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is big government" and then assign the ills to "big government". The reality is we are quite far from a socialism style "big government", and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where private interest and the public good are most commonly at odds.
Your argument relies on your own definitions of public good, etc; whereas mine relies on your definitions to come to my conclusions. Unless you think that there are terrible travesties in the relatively unregulated markets like widescreen televisions or number 2 pencils, my argument doesn't really break down. Yours, however, needs quite a bit of proof you have not provided, particularly you need to demonstrate what the public interest actually is, then what the private interest is, then why they are not compatible, then that the proposed regulations alleviate the problem instead of creating rent seeking.
By the way, excuse my sentence structure, because I have no idea how that 1st sentence should be written.
|
On July 11 2013 08:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:11 farvacola wrote:On July 11 2013 08:09 cLutZ wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is capitalism" and then assign the ills to capitalism. The reality is we are quite far from capitalism, and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where the government involvement is heaviest. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is big government" and then assign the ills to "big government". The reality is we are quite far from a socialism style "big government", and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where private interest and the public good are most commonly at odds. Your argument relies on your own definitions of public good, etc; whereas mine relies on your definitions to come to my conclusions. Unless you think that there are terrible travesties in the relatively unregulated markets like widescreen televisions or number 2 pencils, my argument doesn't really break down. Yours, however, needs quite a bit of proof you have not provided, particularly you need to demonstrate what the public interest actually is, then what the private interest is, then why they are not compatible, then that the proposed regulations alleviate the problem instead of creating rent seeking. By the way, excuse my sentence structure, because I have no idea how that 1st sentence should be written.
Huh? Obviously if the market is doing fine and everyone is happy then regulation wouldn't be proposed. Regulation comes from somewhere. It's not like politicians just randomly regulate things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
