United States Politics Thread 46

[Rounin Ryuuji]

They should get to own all this because they made it, simple as.

Because they did all the work — all of it — from square one? Simple as? More like "As if".

Property at its core can never have a basis that isn't the right of conquest.

Why not?

That huge companies required the labor of thousands to become huge is obvious;

Okay, so why shouldn't they be (1) the primary beneficiaries of their own labour; and (2) have equity in companies they help build?

the people who got in at the right time and the right level got pretty damn rich for themselves along with Messrs. Bezos and Musk,

And...?

the people who are unskilled

There are no low-skilled jobs, only low-paid ones.

labor in the warehouse, like, what did you expect?

Them to be reaping more benefit from their own labour on an individual level than Musk, Bezos, et. al.

Market dynamics are power dynamics, if you're some poor schmuck stacking boxes in a globalized economy you're trivial to replace and therefore powerless.

And this is how it ought to be? I don't follow the logic. There are admissions throughout that this isn't exactly fair. And no bullshit about life not being fair — society can attempt to make it as much or as little so as it wants.

If you want to actually improve the bargaining conditions for labor, your best tool bar none is to cut off supply. With rock-bottom birth rates in every country that knows what the word "industry" means, proper immigration restriction over a period of one to two decades...

UBI also works without being a member of, to make a pun, a party lacking in vision. If labour can say, "I don't need this job, good luck finding somebody to put up with your bullshit" as opposed to allowing the exploitation of existential duress, this will also wean corporations off cheap labour pretty quickly. Imposts on capital flight and heavy duties on all employers not paying their outsourced employees 250% of the UBI rate, will go towards preventing gaming this, at least for a time.

would probably be enough to seriously change the labor market dynamics to the detriment of capital.

It would also do a lot more bad things.

You can buttress this with government regulation where appropriate; Americans seem extremely in love with price-fixing of various kinds but banning work contracts with no fixed, or at least no minimum hours, introducing a sensible minimum quota for vacation days or requiring a buffer period before employment can be terminated by the employer are all classic European socialist measures

Far more than this would be appropriate.

that are unlikely to reduce total productivity

We overproduce.

and would even provide some ammunition for the fight to cut down some of the more dysfunctional unions.

Which ones are dysfunctional, and why can they not be mended? Cutting unions sounds like a good road to Capitalism breaking itself again more quickly.

Of course, such a program would have severe to cataclysmic consequences for every demographic that is currently politically important, so it is somewhere between Hitler and Satan on the popularity scale.

Then why do you suggest something cataclysmic rather than something not cataclysmic. What, exactly, is your point?

[rotting bones]

They should get to own all this because they made it, simple as.

Because they did all the work — all of it — from square one? Simple as? More like "As if".

Seriously. Is anyone still convinced by the "company founders did all the work" narrative?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

They should get to own all this because they made it, simple as.

Because they did all the work — all of it — from square one? Simple as? More like "As if".

Seriously. Is anyone still convinced by the "company founders did all the work" narrative?

Some people like it. It lends a bit of romantisme to what's otherwise a rather nasty affair.

[Raphael]

Apparently you haven't met any owners. I have; every one I've worked for has been principally motivated by the desire to sell the company they founded as quickly as possible.

I really don't like to agree with Hallow XIII on anything, but I think you might be overgeneralizing from owners in the IT sector in the USA here. Hallow seems to be idealizing the German Mittelstand, where it is common for businesses to stay in the same family for generations.

Curiously, you seem to be aware of the bad consequences of plutocracy-- you've simply responded by dividing the plutocracy conceptually in two: virtuous owner-founders and evil investors.

Yeah, that idea unfortunately has a long, and very ugly, history on the German far right.

[Raphael]

And now for something completely different - that is, a question unrelated to any of the current or recent debates:

One perennial fantasy of people commenting on US politics seems to be the scenario of a presidential nominating convention that deadlocks, with none of the favourites for the nomination being able to get the nomination, and eventually settles on a compromise candidate who was not one of the favourites to win the nomination.

My question is, when was the last time that actually happened? Republicans' 1940 choice of Willkie? Democrats' 1924 choice of Davis?

[zompist]

Apparently you haven't met any owners. I have; every one I've worked for has been principally motivated by the desire to sell the company they founded as quickly as possible.

I really don't like to agree with Hallow XIII on anything, but I think you might be overgeneralizing from owners in the IT sector in the USA here. Hallow seems to be idealizing the German Mittelstand, where it is common for businesses to stay in the same family for generations.

Is Hallow German?

Small businesses are idealized here too-- it's politically impossible for either party to be against them. They produce 45% of GDP, which is down from 50% in the 1990s.

I'm not against them either, but I think they get romanticized too much. Small business owners are conservative in several senses-- more likely to be right-wing, more likely to be regressive in workplace policy. Employees will find lower pay, benefits, and opportunities for advancement compared to large firms.

[rotting bones]

Is Hallow German?

IIRC, he was an Albanian(?) German academic or something.

[Raphael]

Is Hallow German?

Yes - a while ago, in the previous US politics thread, there was a pretty big dustup when he talked at length about how much he hates US liberalism for having, in his view, a bad influence on Germany.

Small businesses are idealized here too-- it's politically impossible for either party to be against them. They produce 45% of GDP, which is down from 50% in the 1990s.

Strictly speaking, Mittelstand means small and medium-sized family-owned businesses, up to, I think, a few hundred employees or something like that.

I'm not against them either, but I think they get romanticized too much. Small business owners are conservative in several senses-- more likely to be right-wing, more likely to be regressive in workplace policy. Employees will find lower pay, benefits, and opportunities for advancement compared to large firms.

Knowing Hallow, he'll probably see each of these points as a plus.

[Travis B.]

Is Hallow German?

IIRC, he was an Albanian(?) German academic or something.

I thought he was Albanian Swiss.

[zompist]

Small businesses are idealized here too-- it's politically impossible for either party to be against them. They produce 45% of GDP, which is down from 50% in the 1990s.

Strictly speaking, Mittelstand means small and medium-sized family-owned businesses, up to, I think, a few hundred employees or something like that.

Yes-- the cutoff for the above stats is 499 employees.

[Torco]

Apparently you haven't met any owners. I have; every one I've worked for has been principally motivated by the desire to sell the company they founded as quickly as possible.

huuh.... I think you work in IT, right? there's nothing wrong with that, ofc, but I need to point out that not every business owner is running a startup. none of the companies I've worked with or in such that I've met the owner was geared towards being sold ASAP: indeed many aren't even publicly traded. the burgeois class is broader than startups waiting for their IPO.

Also, the idea that either owners or workers simply don't care about the quality of their product is ludicrous: owners may be incentivized to produce shoddy product sometimes, but then again so do workers that operate under a gosplan-like system. both workers and owners, however, have many incentives and internal motivations to make the best thing they can, if conditions allow for it.

for one things, it's more fun to make a very good table than it is to make a shitty table: you feel better doing it, and afterwards being the dude that made that amazing table that's sure to last for hundreds of years gives one a sense of pride: work is often a social matter, and people tend to instinctively respect -and want to keep good relationships with- the people who do the best kind of work. if you're in a factory, you're gonna prefer it if everyone else does their job well cause otherwise you can't do your work well, and in many jobs it means you could die! (think of miners, or age-of-sail sailors, or soldiers, or people who work making explosives, or hypothetical asteroid miners). if you're a manager of a train factory and your locomotives are better than other people's locomotives, that also gives you status, at least amongst people who care about trains, so nerds and your colleagues... not to mention the nice opportunities you get being competent: even if you don't stand to gain from this monetarily immediately, like, even if we go with the socialist cartoon of 'everyone's paycheck is the same', being the dude that designed and built the most powerful locomotive in the world, or the fastest, or the safest, or the easiest to operate, is probably going to mean you'll have other companies wanting to hire you, offer you better conditions, or simply the chance to work in more fun projects, like I don't know, building the first nuclear-powered steam locomotive or something. capitalism often makes us forget this, but even confucious said, Isn't it a pleasure to, having cultivated a skill, to practice it? Isn't it also a joy when friends come from afar?. being really good at your job is a good strategy for either of those. of course not *everyone* is intrinsically motivated to be good at their job, and even more people have just given it up on it because of alienation from their labours, but then again we don't need an entire economy of ronaldinhos.

[Moose-tache]

And now for something completely different - that is, a question unrelated to any of the current or recent debates:

One perennial fantasy of people commenting on US politics seems to be the scenario of a presidential nominating convention that deadlocks, with none of the favourites for the nomination being able to get the nomination, and eventually settles on a compromise candidate who was not one of the favourites to win the nomination.

My question is, when was the last time that actually happened? Republicans' 1940 choice of Willkie? Democrats' 1924 choice of Davis?

In 1968 the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey even though he wasn't super popular. Going into the convention he did have a plurality of pledged delegates, but this included delegates inherited from Johnson's canceled campaign, as well as delegates pledged with some shady shenanigans by party bosses. The departure of the incumbent president, the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and the late entry of George McGovern made for a chaotic situation. At the start of the convention some states couldn't even decide to whom they had pledged their delegates. So while Humphrey did eventually get the nomination, it wasn't obvious until the convention actually started.

[Nortaneous]

However, under the current economy, anything you might improve, any time you work a little harder or smarter... a great deal of the benefits will go to the 1%, some of the benefits will go to the 10%. Standards of living will always remain the same for you, no matter what you do. If you're lucky: there's a significant chance things will get worse.

That's a very European attitude. Might it have something to do with the decline in your standard of living?

Let's be realistic, the bulk of that income will still come from the poor and working classes

Will it?

State and local taxes are typically proportionally higher on people with low incomes, but state and local government revenues are mostly diverted to politicians' cousins. (I've been on this forum since high school, so at some point I probably mentioned the time classes were canceled for two months because some county politician's wife had a company selling expensive class scheduling software that didn't exist.)

You mentioned the French wealth tax earlier. When it was reformed a couple years ago, the state lost some income. That had to be compensated, so taxes on gas were increased.

Did it have to be? Do French politicians not have contract-landing cousins?

Immigration restriction won't do much, or anything about the labor supply. First, we have outsourcing, container ships and Zoom conferences. People don't need to be there to compete with you on the job market.

In some jobs; not in others. I used to work a job that physically cannot be outsourced. Out of the thirty or so people I worked with, maybe five of them were born here. It wasn't that bad a job, but it would've been better if they'd had to compete harder for labor.

Second, a natural consequence of 'proper immigration policy' is illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants don't have any legal protection -- they're very cheap labor.

Are governments incapable of regulating businesses?

Third, all political debate centers on immigration, racism, and bashing minorities -- while we're busy discussing this, the nice government regulation you enjoy can safely be taken away.

The nice government regulation I enjoy, such as immigration restriction, can be taken away by open-borders lobbies backed by the Koch brothers, yes, exactly.

[rotting bones]

The nice government regulation I enjoy, such as immigration restriction, can be taken away by open-borders lobbies backed by the Koch brothers, yes, exactly.

Are there any government policies that benefit you which don't directly involve punishing poor people?

Or if inflicting suffering is the only thing you enjoy, how about we raise Nortaneous shrines across the country? In these shrines, we'll sacrifice one pig in place of every illegal immigrant you'd have otherwise deported. Do you like that? Does IIRC ~16% of America's current pig production slake your thirst, O thunderer?

I'm thinking your image would be in the style of Guan Yu. I feel like Kali would be too on the nose, unless that's what you prefer.

[Ares Land]

That's a very European attitude. Might it have something to do with the decline in your standard of living?

That may be so. Even then, American living standards are stagnating. That's fact; there are mounds of data to back that up. Even Donald Trump noticed. If you don't mind that, or hope to someday join the 1%, that's your call. As they say, there's a sucker born every minute.

Did it have to be? Do French politicians not have contract-landing cousins?

Just so. The wealth tax on financial investments was repelled because, hey, guess who paid that tax?

Second, a natural consequence of 'proper immigration policy' is illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants don't have any legal protection -- they're very cheap labor.

Are governments incapable of regulating businesses?

Right-wing politicians hate foreigners, but they hate hurting the bottom line even more. Cracking down on businesses that employ illegals hurts the bottom line, so it never happens. It's better to hit on the illegals; that way they get cheaper.

Third, all political debate centers on immigration, racism, and bashing minorities -- while we're busy discussing this, the nice government regulation you enjoy can safely be taken away.

The nice government regulation I enjoy, such as immigration restriction, can be taken away by open-borders lobbies backed by the Koch brothers, yes, exactly.

Americans still put kids in cages and Europeans still drown refugees in the Mediterranean, so as far as I'm concerned open-borders lobbyist suck at their jobs and the Koch brothers should hire better ones.

[Nortaneous]

That's a very European attitude. Might it have something to do with the decline in your standard of living?

That may be so. Even then, American living standards are stagnating. That's fact; there are mounds of data to back that up. Even Donald Trump noticed. If you don't mind that, or hope to someday join the 1%, that's your call. As they say, there's a sucker born every minute.

Well, the nice thing about America is that, unlike in Europe, it's not unreasonable to hope to join at least the 10% - which is already into seven figures. (1% starts at eight, which is a little unrealistic; the only person I've met who's that rich sold two businesses and got in early on Bitcoin.)

The not so nice thing is that you have to if you don't want to live in hell. Or you have to move into an industry where you can work remotely and are safe from offshoring - which means government or tech startups.

Right-wing politicians hate foreigners, but they hate hurting the bottom line even more. Cracking down on businesses that employ illegals hurts the bottom line, so it never happens. It's better to hit on the illegals; that way they get cheaper.

If unfortunate political realities enter into it here, why shouldn't they be relevant to taxation? The 0.1% would prefer that the rest of the top quintile get strip-mined - that way they're less of a threat.

The whole point of "populism" was to reject the left/right framework and force a realignment that could implement good policies and repeal bad ones, but it was killed (because it advocated for pro-labor policies) and co-opted by the usual GOP business interests, so now we're back to elections being about forced-meme social-issues distractions.

Americans still put kids in cages and Europeans still drown refugees in the Mediterranean, so as far as I'm concerned open-borders lobbyist suck at their jobs and the Koch brothers should hire better ones.

Legal immigration is much more of a threat than illegal. Hart-Celler was a mistake of world-historical proportions.

Jorge Ramos, the "Hispanic Walter Cronkite" or whatever, denounces Mexican irredentism as a conspiracy theory in English, but promotes it in Spanish. His translators sometimes forget to leave those parts out.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

That's a very European attitude. Might it have something to do with the decline in your standard of living?

That may be so. Even then, American living standards are stagnating. That's fact; there are mounds of data to back that up. Even Donald Trump noticed. If you don't mind that, or hope to someday join the 1%, that's your call. As they say, there's a sucker born every minute.

Well, the nice thing about America is that, unlike in Europe, it's not unreasonable to hope to join at least the 10%

Bold claim. I'd like to see some proof.

The whole point of "populism" was to reject the left/right framework and force a realignment that could implement good policies and repeal bad ones, but it was killed (because it advocated for pro-labor policies) and co-opted by the usual GOP business interests, so now we're back to elections being about forced-meme social-issues distractions.

As if there were any sincerity to it. Actions speak louder than words on this point.

Americans still put kids in cages and Europeans still drown refugees in the Mediterranean, so as far as I'm concerned open-borders lobbyist suck Legal immigration is much more of a threat than illegal. Hart-Celler was a mistake of world-historical proportions.

Bold claim. Again, I'd like some proof.

[MacAnDàil]

Hart-Cellar removed racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is a problem. So it seems that that previous law was problematic.

[Vardelm]

Well, the nice thing about America is that, unlike in Europe, it's not unreasonable to hope to join at least the 10% - which is already into seven figures.

The not so nice thing is that you have to if you don't want to live in hell. Or you have to move into an industry where you can work remotely and are safe from offshoring - which means government or tech startups.

This is complete bunk. My household is nowhere near 7 figures and I definitely do not "live in hell". Also, if your job can be done remotely, it can be done remotely from the other side of the world, so it's not safe from offshoring.

[Nortaneous]

That may be so. Even then, American living standards are stagnating. That's fact; there are mounds of data to back that up. Even Donald Trump noticed. If you don't mind that, or hope to someday join the 1%, that's your call. As they say, there's a sucker born every minute.

Well, the nice thing about America is that, unlike in Europe, it's not unreasonable to hope to join at least the 10%

Bold claim. I'd like to see some proof.

I've met rich people who grew up on food stamps.

The whole point of "populism" was to reject the left/right framework and force a realignment that could implement good policies and repeal bad ones, but it was killed (because it advocated for pro-labor policies) and co-opted by the usual GOP business interests, so now we're back to elections being about forced-meme social-issues distractions.

As if there were any sincerity to it. Actions speak louder than words on this point.

They had little chance to act. Their guy won in 2016, but how many divisions did he have? Not enough.

Legal immigration is much more of a threat than illegal. Hart-Celler was a mistake of world-historical proportions.

Bold claim. Again, I'd like some proof.

Sure - here's Jorge Ramos again:

"The seemingly inexorable transformation of the United States into a Latino nation will be complete sometime during the first quarter of the next century."

"According to Harvard professors Marcelo Suárez-Orozco and Mariela Páez, Hispanics face three possible scenarios in the future. The first is that they will replicate the experience of earlier European immigrants and be assimilated; the second is that, based on racial differences, some Latinos will fully integrate with whites in two or three generations while others will remain at the margins of U.S. society; and the third is that Hispanics, by virtue of their vast numbers, will create their own sociocultural space and forge new strategies for adaptation. I have the most faith in this third scenario."

"Latinos will continue to grow, to educate and prepare themselves, and someday—a day that, unfortunately, none of us will be able to witness—they will outnumber all other ethnic groups in this country."

"But while no fighting is taking place on the military or legal fronts, there is fighting going on culturally. It's the Reconquest. Latinos are culturally reconquering lands that once were part of the Spanish empire."

My impression - from, like, college and shit - is that, when a guy with blond hair, blue eyes, and a huge platform starts talking about winning space for his people through conquest, this is generally considered cause for concern.