Some Predictions For The Next Year

[durangodawood]

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

The point is, barring some weird catastrophe, its coming.

Tons of wealth can be generated by machines, but in the current economic paradigm there's no way for the average person to access it. The idea of a labor market will be decimated. What then?

 

[hislegacy]

Increase unemployment in the sense of many people no longer needing to work two jobs in order to survive,

AOC is the author of that statistic and was shown false.

During the interview, Ocasio-Cortez said, "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."

Repeating a pants on fire does not make it true, no matter how many times it is repeated..​

 

[mark46]

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

 

[MIDutch]

Meh. Not surprising.

It's Republicans being Republicans.

They did the same thing during Obama's tenure. Heck, McConnell even went on TV after Obama was elected and basically admitted as much.

And then they complained that Obama tried to get things done by Executive Orders (which usually only apply to the Federal Government).

 

[MIDutch]

Careful what you wish for...alll farming and food production is in the realm of possibilities.

Yes.

And that would be a good thing given the world's population.

 

[98cwitr]

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.

That's simply not true. There are plenty of non-minimum wage jobs that don't require a college degree. We provide public education up through 12th grade. Finishing high school is a key component for not living in poverty. My first job was making $2.28/hr at Waffle House. That landed me a job at T-Mobile making $28k a year...I was still in high school at the time.

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.

Forcing companies to pay a wage that is unsustainable for the work required is anti-American. That is (or should be) a free agreement between the employer and the worker. Government involvement has proven to result in unemployment.

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

Right! Again, the question is: Why sent me thousands of dollars when I already make thousands of dollars per month on my own? IOW, why send to people who don't need it?

 

[Ringo84]

Forcing companies to pay a wage that is unsustainable for the work required is anti-American. That is (or should be) a free agreement between the employer and the worker. Government involvement has proven to result in unemployment.

Forcing people to work for starvation wages because the CEOs of companies are too self-absorbed to care about their workers is anti-American.

I don't know if it was this thread or the other where I said this; I lose track: a livable wage and unionization - for every worker at every level, no excuses, is absolutely nonnegotiable for me.

Right! Again, the question is: Why sent me thousands of dollars when I already make thousands of dollars per month on my own? IOW, why send to people who don't need it?

Because means testing sucks and ends up hurting the type of people who tend to need stimulus like this the most. It's not an either-or. You don't need the money; that's fine. A lot of other people do, and we shouldn't need to pick between paying comfortable people like you and helping the vast majority who do.
Ringo

 

[98cwitr]

Forcing people to work for starvation wages because the CEOs of companies are too self-absorbed to care about their workers is anti-American.

No one is starving. WIC/SNAP/TANF take care of those individuals

I don't know if it was this thread or the other where I said this; I lose track: a livable wage and unionization - for every worker at every level, no excuses, is absolutely nonnegotiable for me.

Unions take money from people, and via compulsion. Union bosses are rich and eat better far better than those they are suppose to be championing. They bully the hand that feeds, and when they don't, they are complicit in their own benefit over others. We shouldn't be for that. I've never needed a middle man to get a promotion.

Because means testing sucks and ends up hurting the type of people who tend to need stimulus like this the most. It's not an either-or. You don't need the money; that's fine. A lot of other people do, and we shouldn't need to pick between paying comfortable people like you and helping the vast majority who do.
Ringo

This is simple: Just give the money to people who filed taxes in 2019, but are out of work still. The government has the means of identifying these folks.

 

[Ringo84]

No one is starving. WIC/SNAP/TANF take care of those individuals

Oh? Nobody is starving; everyone has what they need?

This is patently untrue. WIC and programs like it do good work, but they're overextended during the pandemic. Nobody should be starving in what we laughingly call the "greatest" and "richest" country in the world, because everyone should be paid a livable wage so that they don't starve.

To me, this is not only an American value, but a Christian value.

Unions take money from people, and via compulsion. Union bosses are rich and eat better far better than those they are suppose to be championing. We shouldn't be for that.

That's a stereotype that is probably corporate anti-union propaganda. Unions help workers realize their rights collectively instead of wrangling with management (talk about being "rich and eat[ing] far better") alone. So I am for that and I'm the Rock of Gibraltar when it comes to being pro-union.

This is simple: Just give the money to people who filed taxes in 2019, but are out of work still. The government has the means of identifying these folks.

That may not fill in all the 'edge cases' of people who need the money but may not have filed taxes in 2019. I'd rather distribute the money to everyone and risk that some get it who don't need it, rather than carefully categorizing who needs it and who doesn't and leaving out the truly needy among us.
Ringo

 

[98cwitr]

Oh? Nobody is starving; everyone has what they need?

Everyone has the opportunity to obtain what they need in America. Yes; emphatically yes. You can lead a horse to water, you can even hold his head under, but you risk ending up with a dead drowned horse...you can't make him drink.

This is patently untrue. WIC and programs like it do good work, but they're overextended during the pandemic. Nobody should be starving in what we laughingly call the "greatest" and "richest" country in the world, because everyone should be paid a livable wage so that they don't starve.

Were expanded in my state. Equality of opportunity is the paramount goal in society. Equality of outcome forces inequality to the point of the death of liberty and freedom (core American values).

That's a stereotype that is probably corporate anti-union propaganda. Unions help workers realize their rights collectively instead of wrangling with management (talk about being "rich and eat[ing] far better") alone. So I am for that and I'm the Rock of Gibraltar when it comes to being pro-union.

Not propaganda, but personal experience with an old employer (and somewhat true with current one).

True back in the 1920s. Not today. We are not living in that time, and therefore the "benefits" proposed are outdated.

That may not fill in all the 'edge cases' of people who need the money but may not have filed taxes in 2019. I'd rather distribute the money to everyone and risk that some get it who don't need it, rather than carefully categorizing who needs it and who doesn't and leaving out the truly needy among us.
Ringo

Well all the stimulus recipient logic is based on 2019 tax return data right now, so don't support the stimulus then?

 

[Ringo84]

Everyone has the opportunity to obtain what they need in America. Yes; emphatically yes. You can lead a horse to water, you can even hold his head under, but you risk ending up with a dead drowned horse...you can't make him drink.

"Opportunity" is great, but not nearly enough. Everyone should have what they need.

Were expanded in my state. Equality of opportunity is the paramount goal in society. Equality of outcome forces inequality to the point of the death of liberty and freedom (core American values).

"Liberty" and "freedom" for whom - wealthy people who are scared of competition?

The way you protect liberty and freedom is to care for your citizens. That's protecting the "inalienable right" that's "endowed by [your] creator" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Not propaganda, but personal experience with an old employer (and somewhat true with current one).

This is the equivalent of looking out of your window, not seeing any pandas, and concluding that pandas can't exist based on your front yard alone.

It's not "outdated" at all. The fact that you say that is more proof of how out of touch you are. The same issues they faced in the 1920s are some of the same ones today. The nature of work has changed somewhat, but the reason we have 40 hour work weeks and weekends and all the benefits we enjoy today are because of the hard-fought work of unions.

Well all the stimulus recipient logic is based on 2019 tax return data right now, so don't support the stimulus then?

Another false choice. If sending money to someone comfortable like you is what it takes to get money to the poorest folks, so be it.
Ringo

 

[SimplyMe]

No one is starving. WIC/SNAP/TANF take care of those individuals

You are in favor of corporate welfare? That is what you appear to be saying -- that companies that refuse to pay their employees enough should be "subsidized" by the government; that the government will give the employee "additional income" rather than the employer paying a living wage.

This is the idea behind minimum wage laws, to ensure that companies pay a "living wage," so that companies are not having their payroll subsidized by the government. If a job cannot pay a "living wage" then the job should not exist. It is also worth noting that federal minimum wage laws, in the past, have not caused unemployment.

Unions take money from people, and via compulsion. Union bosses are rich and eat better far better than those they are suppose to be championing. They bully the hand that feeds, and when they don't, they are complicit in their own benefit over others. We shouldn't be for that. I've never needed a middle man to get a promotion.

Looking over changes in my lifetime, it seems fairly obvious, to me, that unions are needed. I will, at the same time, state that union abuses need to be reined in. I can agree that joining a union should not be required, just as banning unions should also not be legal. If unions have to justify the dues they are being paid, out of fear of members quitting the union, then that likely would go a long way toward curbing some of the issues with unions. There may be other ways to improve things -- I'm guessing there are some great ideas out there. What seems obvious is that workers need to have better leverage when negotiating salaries and unions seem to be one of the better ways to make that happen.

 

[98cwitr]

"Opportunity" is great, but not nearly enough. Everyone should have what they need.

There's the rub. ...they just might have to work for it. Everyone has to work for it, and everyone's needs are not the same. And who is given the authority to determine 'needs' vs. 'wants?'

"Liberty" and "freedom" for whom - wealthy people who are scared of competition?

Everyone...even if it means "freedom to fail."

The way you protect liberty and freedom is to care for your citizens. That's protecting the "inalienable right" that's "endowed by [your] creator" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Protecting a citizen's rights is paramount to government's purpose for existing, yes.

This is the equivalent of looking out of your window, not seeing any pandas, and concluding that pandas can't exist based on your front yard alone.

I can get in my car and go to the zoo if I want to see a panda, or watch them on youtube.

It's not "outdated" at all. The fact that you say that is more proof of how out of touch you are. The same issues they faced in the 1920s are some of the same ones today. The nature of work has changed somewhat, but the reason we have 40 hour work weeks and weekends and all the benefits we enjoy today are because of the hard-fought work of unions.

16 hour work days for 12 year olds are not "the same ones today."

Another false choice. If sending money to someone comfortable like you is what it takes to get money to the poorest folks, so be it.
Ringo

But it's not! Maybe if the government didn't take so much in the first place, Americans, especially the working class (those taxed the most, paying the most, and who can't afford to meet 'write-off' requirements) wouldn't be in the lowly position they are. The flip side of this was the motivation of such a position for me to get out of that and climb up; ultimately with the goal of being able to provide for a stay-at-home wife and children on my salary alone (traditional nuclear family situation). Why? Because I didn't have that and saw the immense benefits. I am happy to champion voluntary revenue generation by government programs that help fund merit-based education programs like Georgia's HOPE scholarships. Georgia used lottery money to provide anyone with a 3.0 GPA or higher public college funding. As lottery isn't compulsory, it's a great way of not seizing the fruits of anyone's labor to help those who have earned a solid education.

 

[98cwitr]

You are in favor of corporate welfare? That is what you appear to be saying -- that companies that refuse to pay their employees enough should be "subsidized" by the government; that the government will give the employee "additional income" rather than the employer paying a living wage.

Not exactly, but I would favor overturning Citizen's United for a 0% corporate tax rate if that company's employees were 100% based in the US. Don't bite the hand that produces.

This is the idea behind minimum wage laws, to ensure that companies pay a "living wage," so that companies are not having their payroll subsidized by the government. If a job cannot pay a "living wage" then the job should not exist. It is also worth noting that federal minimum wage laws, in the past, have not caused unemployment.

That all sounds nice until placed into practice. Doors shudder. People are unemployed. Businesses go elsewhere.

Looking over changes in my lifetime, it seems fairly obvious, to me, that unions are needed. I will, at the same time, state that union abuses need to be reined in. I can agree that joining a union should not be required, just as banning unions should also not be legal. If unions have to justify the dues they are being paid, out of fear of members quitting the union, then that likely would go a long way toward curbing some of the issues with unions. There may be other ways to improve things -- I'm guessing there are some great ideas out there. What seems obvious is that workers need to have better leverage when negotiating salaries and unions seem to be one of the better ways to make that happen.

Answer me this: Why should money be involved in running a union at all? Why can't employees simply ban together, voluntarily, to advocate for themselves and that be what we all call a "union?"

 

[Ringo84]

There's the rub. ...they just might have to work for it. Everyone has to work for it, and everyone's needs are not the same. '

Nobody should have to work for basic survival needs.

No, everyone is not the same. What I want to see is for everyone's needs to be met equally, whatever they are; not for everyone to be the same.

Everyone...even if it means "freedom to fail."

Having enough food to eat, water to drink, a roof under your head and a job that pays you enough to survive is one way to ensure people's freedom to fail.

Protecting a citizen's rights is paramount to government's purpose for existing, yes.

Exactly! And there are no rights more fundamental that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A government protects its citizens right to life in part by ensuring that they have what they need to survive.

16 hour work days for 12 year olds are not "the same ones today."

Thanks to unions.

But it's not! Maybe if the government didn't take so much in the first place, Americans, especially the working class (those taxed the most, paying the most, and who can't afford to meet 'write-off' requirements) wouldn't be in the lowly position they are. The flip side of this was the motivation of such a position for me to get out of that and climb up; ultimately with the goal of being able to provide for a stay-at-home wife and children on my salary alone (traditional nuclear family situation). Why? Because I didn't have that and saw the immense benefits. I am happy to champion voluntary revenue generation by government programs that help fund merit-based education programs like Georgia's HOPE scholarships. Georgia used lottery money to provide anyone with a 3.0 GPA or higher public college funding. As lottery isn't compulsory, it's a great way of not seizing the fruits of anyone's labor to help those who have earned a solid education.

This is a mixture of 'right, but an incomplete picture' and 'completely wrong'. The working class is taxed too much, especially in relation to the wealthy, who often evade taxes completely. Lowering taxes sounds great and tickles ears, but it really only benefits - who else? - the wealthy, who usually have the resources that they generally don't need services like public schools, tuition assistance, etc. Those cuts "trickle down" to the poor, which means there's less for them and more for the rich.

That, not me advocating for the lives of the poorest among us, is class warfare.

The best motivator I know of for someone to make good is to have the tools and resources they need to succeed. I was a notoriously terrible math student through K-12. Then, in one of life's ironies, I chose a college major (computer science) that required math!

But with good tutoring and an instructional style that fit my learning style, I succeeded - not excelled, but succeeded - in calc I, calc II, and linear algebra. If I had not been able to draw on those resources, I would probably still be in college suffering through my tenth iteration of calc I. I was lucky and had a very good friend who was willing to help me. But it shouldn't come down to mere luck; everyone should have the same resources that I did.
Ringo[/quote]

 

[98cwitr]

Nobody should have to work for basic survival needs.

Everyone should, because it takes labor from others to produce those "basic survival needs" unless the person is willing to self-produce them (also work).

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

No, everyone is not the same. What I want to see is for everyone's needs to be met equally, whatever they are; not for everyone to be the same.

Who is to define a "need" then?

Having enough food to eat, water to drink, a roof under your head and a job that pays you enough to survive is one way to ensure people's freedom to fail.

Isn't not having those things failure?

Exactly! And there are no rights more fundamental that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A government protects its citizens right to life in part by ensuring that they have what they need to survive.

Is one life any more valuable or deserving than another's? If not, we dare not rob Peter to pay Paul, for God said "thou shalt not steal."

Thanks to unions.

...of the 1920s

This is a mixture of 'right, but an incomplete picture' and 'completely wrong'. The working class is taxed too much, especially in relation to the wealthy, who often evade taxes completely. Lowering taxes sounds great and tickles ears, but it really only benefits - who else? - the wealthy, who usually have the resources that they generally don't need services like public schools, tuition assistance, etc. Those cuts "trickle down" to the poor, which means there's less for them and more for the rich.

Worrying about what others have is called "coveting". See 10th commandment. What does it say?

That, not me advocating for the lives of the poorest among us, is class warfare.

Didn't Christ charge us with caring for the poor ourselves, not paying others to do it for us? The state should not be doing the job of the Church. The state's job to protect rights and to see that those who violate someone's rights are punished.

The best motivator I know of for someone to make good is to have the tools and resources they need to succeed. I was a notoriously terrible math student through K-12. Then, in one of life's ironies, I chose a college major (computer science) that required math!

But with good tutoring and an instructional style that fit my learning style, I succeeded - not excelled, but succeeded - in calc I, calc II, and linear algebra. If I had not been able to draw on those resources, I would probably still be in college suffering through my tenth iteration of calc I. I was lucky and had a very good friend who was willing to help me. But it shouldn't come down to mere luck; everyone should have the same resources that I did.

Hey, another CS major! As a professional college tutor (college-paid program), I am glad you got the help you needed. Even though our college was smaller, we offered those services. College can seem academically isolating, especially if you were used to having time to talk with teachers in high school.

Some people are smarter than you and I, and therefore instead over coveting their successes, I applaud them, because that's what I would want someone to do to me.

 

[SimplyMe]

Not exactly, but I would favor overturning Citizen's United for a 0% corporate tax rate if that company's employees were 100% based in the US. Don't bite the hand that produces.

I almost touched on campaign finance laws but that is a different and also complex issue. I will state that both businesses and unions should be prohibited from contributing to political campaigns and even from lobbying, this would remove a lot of the money from unions. But, as you point out with Citizens United, that would be part of a larger and much more complicated effort.

That all sounds nice until placed into practice. Doors shudder. People are unemployed. Businesses go elsewhere.

If companies can't afford to pay their employees, they should close. Other businesses are started, as well as profitable businesses expand and hire those laid off from unprofitable companies. Again, there are always these claims that raising the federal minimum wage will drastically hurt workers, cause unemployment, etc.; yet those claims have yet to come true.

Answer me this: Why should money be involved in running a union at all? Why can't employees simply ban together, voluntarily, to advocate for themselves and that be what we all call a "union?"

The simplest answer I can see, they need "experts" when it is time to negotiate with management. They'll need a law firm to verify that the contract created by the company's lawyers matches what they have agreed to and protect the rights of the workers, that there are no "poison pills" in the contract. Additionally, they likely need a financial expert to look over the finances of the company to ensure that the company can afford the costs (increases in pay and benefits) the union is demanding, as well as that the company isn't "hiding" assets or income to make it look as if they cannot afford pay increases.

Again, there as some things a union legitimately needs money for. I'm not against reforming unions to "trim the fat" -- and I think removing the political money from unions would likely be a strong start -- but I would need to look more at what union experts might recommend, as well as how unions work in other Western countries.

 

[Ringo84]

Everyone should, because it takes labor from others to produce those "basic survival needs" unless the person is willing to self-produce them (also work).

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

This is the same Bible that depicted the early Apostles as sharing everything among them and Jesus instructing people to "sell all your possessions and follow Me".

Nobody should have to work simply to survive.

Who is to define a "need" then?

A need is defined here as 'basic survival necessities' like food, water, and shelter.

Isn't not having those things failure?

No.

Is one life any more valuable or deserving than another's? If not, we dare not rob Peter to pay Paul, for God said "thou shalt not steal."

No.

...of the 1920s

Again: we can thank unions for that.

Worrying about what others have is called "coveting". See 10th commandment. What does it say?

It's not "coveting" to point out basic facts about people at the top hoarding their wealth while 99% of us here at the bottom starve.

Didn't Christ charge us with caring for the poor ourselves, not paying others to do it for us? The state should not be doing the job of the Church. The state's job to protect rights and to see that those who violate someone's rights are punished.

If the state's job is to protect rights, and you rightly pointed out that our rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then the state is fulfilling its charge by ensuring that its citizens don't starve or remain homeless.

Hey, another CS major! As a professional college tutor (college-paid program), I am glad you got the help you needed. Even though our college was smaller, we offered those services. College can seem academically isolating, especially if you were used to having time to talk with teachers in high school.

Some people are smarter than you and I, and therefore instead over coveting their successes, I applaud them, because that's what I would want someone to do to me.

Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. College was not an easy road for me, and it taught me that there are a lot of people far better and smarter than I am.

But that doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't enjoy the same things that I had in order to succeed. Because I had help that ensured my success in college, I want to make sure that everyone has the same help so that they, too can succeed at college.
Ringo

 

[A2SG]

Right! Again, the question is: Why sent me thousands of dollars when I already make thousands of dollars per month on my own? IOW, why send to people who don't need it?

If you don't need it, why not give it to someone who does? Rather than help no one?

-- A2SG, seems a simple solution to me........

 

[JSRG]

Statehood for DC and PR would probably mean permanent Dem control of the Senate.

Actually, if you calculate it out for every election in the last decade (2010 to 2020), you will find that even if DC and Puerto Rico were states and provided 4 Democratic senators, which party would control the Senate wouldn't have changed at all. For the sake of this, we'll count Bernie Sanders and Angus King (Independents) as Democrats. Sanders is a Democrat in everything but name, and while Angus King does have a better claim to be Independent, I believe he's a little more liberal than Manchin, who is obviously a Democrat.

In 2010, we'd go from 53/100 to 57/104 Democrats. Democrats maintain majority.
In 2012, we'd go from 55/100 to 59/104 Democrats. Democrats maintain majority.
In 2014, we'd go from 46/100 to 50/104 Democrats. Republicans maintain majority.
In 2016, we'd go from 48/100 to 52/104 Democrats. Republicans maintain majority.
In 2018, we'd go from 47/100 to 51/104 Democrats. Republicans maintain majority.
In 2020, we'd go from 50/100 to 54/104 Democrats. Democrats maintain majority.

So in every single one of those elections, there would be no change in majority if you were to add in 4 Democratic Senators. (in 2016, Republicans have a majority because there was a Republican Vice President)

It is true that the Republicans would have less of a majority in the years they had one, and Democrats would have more of a majority in the years they had the majority. And of course, even if there was no year in the last decade it would make a difference, there undoubtedly would be years in the future when it would. Still, the simple fact is that in the last decade, the the party majority wouldn't change even if you added in 4 guaranteed Democrats to the Senate. So there is little reason to believe that the Democrats would have a perpetual majority.

I should further point out that it is not likely that there will be 4 guaranteed Democrats to beign with. While Washington, D.C. would give 2 guaranteed Democrats no questions asked, it's far from clear that Puerto Rico will be some kind of Democratic stronghold; their current non-voting representative in the House is a Republican. I think it would be a swing state.