Some Predictions For The Next Year

mark46 · Mar 5, 2021

98cwitr said:
Careful what you wish for...alll farming and food production is in the realm of possibilities. One could, at this point, also make a case for transportation.

The issue is clear. Millions of jobs are not necessary because they can be done much more cheaply by machines. The US will eventually need to deal with this issue. This is the basis for growing income equality.

98cwitr · Mar 5, 2021

mark46 said:
The issue is clear. Millions of jobs are not necessary because they can be done much more cheaply by machines. The US will eventually need to deal with this issue. This is the basis for growing income equality.

And this is why I'm getting my kids into automation engineering

Ringo84 · Mar 5, 2021

mark46 said:
I agree with increasing the minimum wage.

As are as increasing automation, let me give you an example. If those who take your order in the drive-throughs are paid say $20 an hour, there will be an incentive for fast food restaurants to increase the automation of the process. If receptionists are paid $20 an hour, more of that process will be automated.

The result is the loss of some low paying jobs.

Another example is low level programmers. The more their wages go up, the more jobs will be automated.
===========
This has been a problem since the 1800's. The solution is increased productivity, job creation and training.

That doesn't seem like an issue with increasing the minimum wage as much as places like McDonald's not valuing the labor of their employees enough to unionize them or pay them decent wages.

The problem is not productivity; if I'm not mistaken, that's been rising for decades while wages have remained stagnant or neatly stagnant. The issue is that workers are valued for their labor but little else, which means that employers like McDonald's are free to exploit them because "what are ya gonna do, go elsewhere?". The solution is increasing minimum wage and/or paying a living wage, and unionization.
Ringo

98cwitr · Mar 5, 2021

Ringo84 said:
That doesn't seem like an issue with increasing the minimum wage as much as places like McDonald's not valuing the labor of their employees enough to unionize them or pay them decent wages.

The problem is not productivity; if I'm not mistaken, that's been rising for decades while wages have remained stagnant or neatly stagnant. The issue is that workers are valued for their labor but little else, which means that employers like McDonald's are free to exploit them because "what are ya gonna do, go elsewhere?". The solution is increasing minimum wage and/or paying a living wage, and unionization.
Ringo

If I were a business owner, and a state raised the minimum wage AND made me unionize, I'd leave that state. If it was done federally, I'd leave the country, and take my jobs and money with me.

Labor policing is socialism; "We might not 'own' your business, but we're going to tell you exactly how you can run it."

Ringo84 · Mar 5, 2021

You feel so strongly about not paying your workers enough to actually live on that you'd take your ball, go home, and pout about """labor policing""". That suggests to me that you wouldn't exactly be a prize to work with anyway, so probably not a major loss.
Ringo

Speedwell · Mar 5, 2021

98cwitr said:
If I were a business owner, and a state raised the minimum wage AND made me unionize, I'd leave that state. If it was done federally, I'd leave the country, and take my jobs and money with me.

Labor policing is socialism; "We might not 'own' your business, but we're going to tell you exactly how you can run it."

More like, ...how you can't run it.

mark46 · Mar 5, 2021

. The issue is that workers are valued for their labor but little else, which means that employers like McDonald's are free to exploit them because "what are ya gonna do, go elsewhere?". The solution is increasing minimum wage and/or paying a living wage, and unionization.
Ringo[/QUOTE]

We aren't communicating. Let's say we raise the minimum wage to a wage enough to support a family, say $20 an hour. Restaurants will now need to choose to decide how many employees they can afford, and even if they can say in business. Large companies have another option; they can replace people with machines. There are systems that can respond to all orders when you drive in, or order from home. And there are systems that require you to punch in your order when you walk in.

So, if we raise the minimum wage to living wage, companies will make decisions, and one choice is to replace jobs by machines.

Are you suggesting that we outlaw machines?

mark46 · Mar 5, 2021

Ringo84 said:
.

McDonald's not valuing the labor of their employees enough to unionize them or pay them decent wages.

Agreed. For some jobs, the labor of an employee is only worth $10 a n hour to them.

Strathos · Mar 5, 2021

durangodawood said:
Any job thats mind-killing enough that a machine could do it should be automated.

As a chess player, that hurts.

Ringo84 · Mar 5, 2021

mark46 said:
. The issue is that workers are valued for their labor but little else, which means that employers like McDonald's are free to exploit them because "what are ya gonna do, go elsewhere?". The solution is increasing minimum wage and/or paying a living wage, and unionization.
Ringo

We aren't communicating. Let's say we raise the minimum wage to a wage enough to support a family, say $20 an hour. Restaurants will now need to choose to decide how many employees they can afford, and even if they can say in business. Large companies have another option; they can replace people with machines. There are systems that can respond to all orders when you drive in, or order from home. And there are systems that require you to punch in your order when you walk in.

So, if we raise the minimum wage to living wage, companies will make decisions, and one choice is to replace jobs by machines.

Are you suggesting that we outlaw machines?[/QUOTE]

Seems like you're making a false choice: either you stay at starvation wages or you might get replaced with machines!

Places like McDonald's need to pay their workers better. They can afford it. We're not even talking about a random mom-and-pop shop like in another thread, but a major corporation. If paying their employers enough to live on is too much, then they need to improve their business, not take it out on their employees.
Ringo

Ringo84 · Mar 5, 2021

durangodawood said:
Any job thats mind-killing enough that a machine could do it should be automated.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be a need to work at a mind-numbing wage slave job to eke out an existence. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

No, we don't live in a perfect world and that's currently not possible. The world will never be perfect, but we can make it more equitable. The first step to that is raising the minimum wage.
Ringo

98cwitr · Mar 5, 2021

Ringo84 said:
You feel so strongly about not paying your workers enough to actually live on that you'd take your ball, go home, and pout about """labor policing""". That suggests to me that you wouldn't exactly be a prize to work with anyway, so probably not a major loss.
Ringo

I don't. I feel strongly about not making a minimum wage job a "career aspiration." Meritocracy is the foundational success of the American economy. To undo (for whatever reasons you wish to give; call it "equity" [which really just means inequality - some animals are MORE EQUAL than others....]) that with the result being the destruction of our liberty, and our independence eroded into government dependence is to abandon the American Dream itself.

I make six figures and the government sent me $5400 in stimulus money. Tell me why I needed that, deserved it, and why the stimulus should still be championed. By the People, For the People....I wish.

A2SG · Mar 5, 2021

98cwitr said:
I've never supported the stimulus payments, and even called my House rep and both Senators to ask them to vote NO. If they don't vote for it, they will be representing me accurately.

I guess that's one approach. Personally, since we're not as bad off financially as many, I used my stimulus check to help out other people who need it more than I do.

But that's me.

-- A2SG, you do you......

jayem · Mar 6, 2021

mark46 said:
The Republicans threatened that if the Democrats end the filibuster, then Republicans would slow down every piece of legislations, and will basically do everything they can to stop all Senate action. Well, the Republicans have, after a bit more than a month, decided to do everything to stop every piece of legislation. The Republicans have made their decision. They will each need to cast their vote against COVID relief and COVID checks, and hope their voters won't remember next summer.

The only question now is what Manchin and Sinema will require for their votes. This will be true now, on the infrastructure bill, and then on the filibuster vote. Make no mistake, the voting right bill WILL PASS before the 2022 elections.
=============
1) The stimulus bill will pass, probably with no Republican votes.
2) The BBB (infrastructure, climate control and jobs bill will pass probably with no Republican votes.

That's it for meaningful legislation until after the 2022 election, unless the filibuster is voted out. Well, $4T may be enough for awhile. The Senate will then spend its time adding lots of new judges, and approving judges and other appointees, while nothing else happens.
==================
3) As always, there will huge fights each time the debt limit needs to increase.
4) AND THEN, AND THEN, the filibuster will be voted out so that the voting rights bill and criminal justice bill can pass. And THEN, good luck to the Republicans. DC statehood will be next, and then Puerto Rico statehood.
============
All this on the table on March 4th, inauguration day according to the conspirators.

Adding federal judges—including SCOTUS justices isn’t necessarily a bad idea. For the very practical reason that more cases can be heard. We’ve had 9 SCOTUS justices since the late 1860s. When the US population was about 40 million. It’s now close to 340 million. That will inevitably generate more federal cases that could benefit from a high court ruling. A larger judiciary will reduce the workload.

But how about this? Have Congress pass a law requiring that after every 10 year census, a congressional panel— made up equally of Dems and Reps—will review the federal caseload and decide if the court system needs expansion. Judges will still need Senate confirmation. So whichever party has the Presidency and a Senate majority at that time will be up to the voters. This will make expanding the courts as non-partisan as possible.

Ringo84 · Mar 6, 2021

98cwitr said:
I don't. I feel strongly about not making a minimum wage job a "career aspiration." Meritocracy is the foundational success of the American economy. To undo (for whatever reasons you wish to give; call it "equity" [which really just means inequality - some animals are MORE EQUAL than others....]) that with the result being the destruction of our liberty, and our independence eroded into government dependence is to abandon the American Dream itself.

This is grandstanding nonsense. Nobody said anything about making a minimum wage job a "career aspiration"; that is exactly the point: people often get trapped in minimum wage jobs because they can't afford to do anything else. Paying people more - which is not an attack on your personal "liberty" unless you're selfish - would fix that.

It's quite hypocritical to speak so admiringly of The American Dream (tm) when you actively oppose allowing other people at the bottom of the pay scale (you revealed yourself that you make six figures) to realize that dream by paying them more. This isn't a big ask, but one of the problems of American society is the [Forget] You, Got Mine mentality, which you seem to have.

I make six figures and the government sent me $5400 in stimulus money. Tell me why I needed that, deserved it, and why the stimulus should still be championed. By the People, For the People....I wish.

Just because you are lucky enough not to need it doesn't mean that others are equally as lucky. Other people exist. I hope this helps, because the existence of others who don't enjoy six figures and (seemingly) a relatively privileged existence seems to be a sticking point.
Ringo

mark46 · Mar 6, 2021

Personally, I don't think that expanding SCOTUS is a good idea. We should be real. If Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election, we would not be considering such an idea.

The issue is with regard to other levels and jurisdictions. Immigration judges are the most obvious needs. We need hundreds, forever, and to work the many years backlog.

jayem said:
Adding federal judges—including SCOTUS justices isn’t necessarily a bad idea. For the very practical reason that more cases can be heard. We’ve had 9 SCOTUS justices since the late 1860s. When the US population was about 40 million. It’s now close to 340 million. That will inevitably generate more federal cases that could benefit from a high court ruling. A larger judiciary will reduce the workload.

But how about this? Have Congress pass a law requiring that after every 10 year census, a congressional panel— made up equally of Dems and Reps—will review the federal caseload and decide if the court system needs expansion. Judges will still need Senate confirmation. So whichever party has the Presidency and a Senate majority at that time will be up to the voters. This will make expanding the courts as non-partisan as possible.

mark46 · Mar 6, 2021

Ringo84 said:
.

Just because you are lucky enough not to need it doesn't mean that others are equally as lucky. Other people exist. I hope this helps, because the existence of others who don't enjoy six figures and (seemingly) a relatively privileged existence seems to be a sticking point.
Ringo

OK, you think that folks who make 6 figures are so needy that they should be sent checks. I also got a check last time. It is a matter of where the money is best spent. I would MUCH, MUCH rather than any monies allocated to those with incomes of 100K be used to increase the amount of the check to those with incomes under $50K.

And yes, I agree with Minchin. Extending unemployment benefits is fine. Extending the unemployment bonuses will become disincentives to going to work, as millions of jobs become available in June and thereafter (after everyone who wants a vaccine has been vaccinated). The Republican idea of the bonus ending at the end of July was a good idea.
=====
That being said, Minchin will have even more influence next time, and the time after that.

Ringo84 · Mar 6, 2021

mark46 said:
OK, you think that folks who make 6 figures are so needy that they should be sent checks. I also got a check last time. It is a matter of where the money is best spent. I would MUCH, MUCH rather than any monies allocated to those with incomes of 100K be used to increase the amount of the check to those with incomes under $50K.

No, that's not what I said. You're mischaracterizing my point.

I agree with you: people at the bottom need the stimulus more than people making six figures. I have in fact said this in my previous post. But to get stimulus checks out there and avoid arguments over what constitutes 'rich', I'd rather see the checks go out to people making sixfigures if that means poor people also getting the help they need.

And yes, I agree with Minchin. Extending unemployment benefits is fine. Extending the unemployment bonuses will become disincentives to going to work, as millions of jobs become available in June and thereafter (after everyone who wants a vaccine has been vaccinated). The Republican idea of the bonus ending at the end of July was a good idea.
=====
That being said, Minchin will have even more influence next time, and the time after that.

Manchin is...well, I can't really say what I want about him. He's better than Krysten "Thumbs Down" Sinema, he's got that.

Maybe some people will still have difficulty finding a job and will need that money. I would rather see unemployment extended than to worry about "disincentives to work".
Ringo

mark46 · Mar 6, 2021

We can double the amounts for poor folks and exclude any amount for those over $100k. There is no extra effort involved. The amounts are based on tax returns.[/QUOTE]

Ringo84 · Mar 6, 2021

mark46 said:
We can double the amounts for poor folks and exclude any amount for those over $100k. There is no extra effort involved. The amounts are based on tax returns.

[/QUOTE]

I'm all for it if they end up doing that. We seem to be mostly in agreement on this?
Ringo

Some Predictions For The Next Year

Well-Known Member

Lord forgive me

Separation of Church and State expert

Lord forgive me

Separation of Church and State expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

No one important

Separation of Church and State expert

Separation of Church and State expert

Lord forgive me

Gumby

Naturalist

Separation of Church and State expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Separation of Church and State expert

Well-Known Member

Separation of Church and State expert

Similar threads