said he would. He gutted unions, which today any credible economist will tell you is why wages are in decline (they call it "collective bargaining" because Union's a dirty word these days). He was the one responsible for stock buy backs. That was a crime before him. Companies weren't supposed to manipulate their own stock price. That lead to CEOs paid in stock which created the distorted market we see today where companies do mass layoffs and unnecessary outsourcing to get short term bumps to stock that translate into money in the CEO's pocket. He also created our homeless problem by shutting down the insane asylums. And then there's how he got elected. He made deals with terrorists to keep Americans hostage to make the Dems look weak. That's not me being a Nut Job, that's a matter of fact. I don't understand why that's not a bigger deal...
Romney ran Bane capital and presided over them while they picked successful companies clean. During the election a bunch of folks working in a pharmaceuticals factory came to him to see if he'd save their jobs. He called the cops on them and had them escorted off the premise. That's how little regard the guy had for workers.
Bush Sr could have been a lot worse. So I'll give you that. But he gave us Bush Jr, and dear lord was his presidency a disaster. There are kids who have never known an America at peace getting ready for college thanks to him. And the 2008 market crash. To be fair it was Regan's deregulation and Clinton continuing it that caused that. But Bush Jr (and Sr) knew it would happen and both could have stopped it.
My point is the left has been right. Over and over again we've been right. Fat lot of good it's done us. Being right doesn't feel good. And it doesn't make anyone else feel good.
in law with rights given to slave holders. Yes, I know there's plenty of defacto slavery (we've brought it back here in the states by forcing prisoners and illegal aliens to work) but that's not the same has having the official government legally recognize slavery.
America was the last country on planet earth to formally disavow slavery.
the poorest still pay sales tax, often when they buy food and medicine. If you go one step up from the poorest and into the working poor you'll find they pay a very high percentage of taxes. State sales tax are not usually progressive. They pay property taxes, Vehicle license taxes, the aforementioned sales tax, etc. The federal programs intended to counterbalance this ("earned income") have been cut back to the point where full time minimum wage disqualifies you. Hell, Missouri just put a work requirement in place for Medicaid but didn't raise the ceiling before you don't qualify for it. Meaning you're forced to go to work to keep access to healthcare but then lose it if you meet the requirement. The poor are well and truly fucked.
there's nothing candid about it. This would have been a carefully prepared statement. It would be far more interesting to have a video of them talking about Trump in a boardroom meeting.
so he effectively does. We do that so they can dodge the higher taxes on income vs capital gains. As a result the economy is constantly booming and busting thanks to stock buy backs and mass layoffs used to boost stock price. The groundwork for all this was laid out by Reagan and continued by Bill Clinton & Bush Jr (Bush Sr mostly left it alone, but he didn't help undo any of it).
I am by no means clueless. I'm fully aware of how our distorted economy works. I'm also aware of what Bezo's is doing. Bernie's been getting some traction by pointing out my tax dollars subsidize his horrendous working conditions. That his workforce couldn't function as human beings without $150 billion a year of subsidies I (and you too) pay for.
Bezo's is doing two things. First, drumming up some free press. But second and just as important, he's giving guys like you an out. See, somewhere you know that the correct solution is to force Bezos to pay a living wage and end both abuse of his workers and the taxpayers. But somewhere else you don't want to see minimum wage go up. The most common reason is you're afraid prices are going to go up and, statistically, you're probably living paycheck to paycheck (70-80% of Americans do depending on how you run the numbers). Like me you're using Amazon's borderline slave labor to buy things you need at discount to make up for declining wages.
None of this is the correct solution. It's all just more supply side economics. In the end it'll continue to chip away at your standard of living. It's a battle you will not win. What's needed now more than ever (thanks Nixon, for the slogan) is _demand_ side economics. It's either that or we, the working class, will just keep losing ground....
This is about 8 days pay for him. That sounds like a lot (8 days pay for me is around $1800 bucks) but if I give $1800 to charity that's a big impact on my life. When you're pulling in $260 million a day it's hardly noticeable.
I'm fed up with ultra rich trying to buy us off with token charitable donation in the hopes we don't demand they take care of their workers. He can start by paying his employees enough that they're not living in the parking lot of his warehouses (excuse me, "fullfillment centers") and they can get off food stamps. Then let's see him give enough to charity that it actually impacts his quality of life.
As it stands I feel like we're being made to go begging to the rich for the basic things needed to run a country and a society...
but America was the last country on earth to maintain a practical legal apparatus for slavery. We fought a civil war for it (yeah, it was "State's rights" but the "right" we was fighting over was the right to own people).
Moreover, we maintained the institution even when it was no longer economically viable (the South was hurting because they had too much capital tied up in slaves that needed to be spent on machines & industrialization). America was maintaining slavery for social reasons. We wanted those slaves as a sort of social buffer. It helped keep poor white southerners in their place since they could look down on the black slaves and feel OK about their (appalling) living conditions because, hey, at least I'm not a slave.
I remember hearing complaints about this back in the mid 90s. It was probably never a good idea to use those terms, but, well, tech was dominated by nerdy white men. They didn't mean anything by it, but it didn't occur to them that slavery might be a touchy subject for some.
longer than it was even useful (the Northern states were out performing the Southern one's economically because the south had too much capital tied up in slaves). We also fought a civil war over it.
I've had those experiences here in the states just the same. The only upside to America is that when I wanted a couple bumps on my head removed I had it done immediately. But for anything that was complicated or needed a specialist I had to wait. I had heart palps that made me feel like I was having mini heart attacks and I had to wait 3 weeks to get in to see a specialist. I never did see the specialist, just his Nurse practitioner. That cost me $800 bucks out of pocket, and I had some of the best insurance you can get.
they're your ruling class. The only time this is not true is when specific action is taken to prevent it from happening. Left alone the rich will form power structures of their own that are government in practice if not name.
This is why "small" government is basically impossible. Government is too useful a tool. Like a box of loaded rifles sitting around waiting to be used. If you don't pick them up and use the somebody else will.
an iPhone for his college age kid I'd like to personally thank Apple for making the X so undesirable and thereby saving me $200-$300 dollars. I hope to see more of these cost saving measures. Maybe a partnership with Microsoft?
they're still used to buy drugs, which keeps the value up. Also money laundering. Now, if the gov't cracks down on the laundering plus legalizes drugs...
even with a group. You're interacting with that group, and the group is generally 3-5 max. Public speaking usually means a group of 10+ that you're not interacting with except maybe for a short question/answer phase at the end.
There are times when I think we subject people to unpleasant things just to do it. I know that there's lots of folks who, because they got ran through the wringer when they were kids want to see kids growing up go through the same. e.g. it's not "fair" that they had to suffer and the next gen doesn't.
don't have the resources to make kill bots that can present any real threat. I don't just mean they're incapable of building them (they are) but they don't have enough raw materials. China won't bother with kill bots because they've got plenty of expendables. Russia is a joke of a country that wouldn't be a threat if US politics weren't such a disaster.
I'll tell you want _does_ worry me about kill bots: the rich using them to do away with the need to take care of the working class. As it stands the ultra wealthy have to fear being disposed in a coup by the military they use to oppress. That goes away once they have kill bots. They not only don't need us they don't have to fear us.
I think this is all basically inevitable unless we get to work building a society where nobody's left behind and everyone's taken care of and do it now before they've got their autonomous weapons. We either create a culture that says everybody, no matter how lazy or worthless, deserves a decent life and then make it happen or we get ready for a time when because the least of use can be declared worthless _all_ of us can be.
his teachers dumped all over him. He wasn't a very likable kid (not his fault, Autism and whatnot). This kind of crap didn't stop until Columbine. The kids were still bullying but at least the teachers stopped. I guess my point is don't rely on teachers, who are overworked and prone to the same human defects as your average bully, to take care of the kids. They crap teachers didn't stop shitting on kids they don't like because they suddenly got compassion. They were afraid of being murdered.
Honestly, if you've got to your Junior year in high school and still hate public speaking then you're going to hate it for life. If a big enough carrot is dangled (or a stick) you might get over it, but rather than spending time hoping for a carrot that might never come the kid's time is probably better spent being left the fuck alone to study.
when we don't need them to work to advance the overall goals of a decent civilization what the hell difference does it make if they faff about all day? Do you suggestion we create miserable toil for them just so our society can be "awesome"? Also, citation needed. We're only just now entering a phase where there's going to be more people than work to do.
There's a dozen other reasons why you're wrong. One man's idleness is another's fulfillment.
Judging by your sig you're neck deep in right wing, puritanical propaganda. That's not going to work anymore. We can't just forge ahead and hope for the best. We're heading for a post-work world whether you like it or not. Our options are to let folks do their own thing, create phony (probably military) jobs for them or let them live in abject, horrifying poverty. Well, there's one more option, we could go full Amish and put a stop to tech. But if you think the ruling class is gonna let that happen you really haven't been paying attention to anything that happened post WWI.
Also, funny how we rag on the working class for being idle but never on the rich....
I don't recall the ACA having anything in it that would make insurance companies pay $2800 for a $15 treatment. There are several laws that prevent the gov't from negotiating drug prices and prevent consumers from importing drugs, but those weren't part of the ACA.
We have a _very_ efficient single payer healthcare system. Medicare. All we need to do now is expand it to everybody.
internationally is that you're buying from countries that have single payer healthcare and therefore can negotiate much, much better drug prices than private insurance companies can/do.
The free market doesn't solve drug prices. There really is only one solution and it's single payer. Healthcare doesn't work like traditional goods because a) unless you have an 8 year degree you lack the necessary information to make informed purchase, b) it's a matter of life or death, meaning you can't really shop around and c) you need it infrequently enough that you can't rely on repeat purchases to weed out low quality (I buy a new video card every 2 years or so but I'll probably only have 1 set of heart stints).
if you accept the premise of private, for profit insurance as a means to access medicine and healthcare and that these companies will be privately traded companies with shareholders then yes, that's where the moral imperative lies. This is one of the consequences of such a system.
We already know the solution is single payer healthcare. We can see it working in a dozen countries. The question is will we swallow our pride long enough to vote the sorts of people in that'll give it to us?
or suffered from Ennui. Their problem was they lost control of their machines and were killed by them. So long as we don't hook out machines up to our brains while we sleep I think we'll just do fine.
Also, you're entire post is predicated on the idea that if people aren't working to survive they don't know what to do with themselves. That couldn't be further away from the truth if it tried. People can and will keep themselves busy with hobbies, family life, researching their own interests, etc. The only reason why we have this notion that if you don't work you're life is worthless is that it was instilled in us by our ruling class. Given enough education and critical thinking we can get over it when the time comes.
Slashdot Mirror
if I didn't have google.
said he would. He gutted unions, which today any credible economist will tell you is why wages are in decline (they call it "collective bargaining" because Union's a dirty word these days). He was the one responsible for stock buy backs. That was a crime before him. Companies weren't supposed to manipulate their own stock price. That lead to CEOs paid in stock which created the distorted market we see today where companies do mass layoffs and unnecessary outsourcing to get short term bumps to stock that translate into money in the CEO's pocket. He also created our homeless problem by shutting down the insane asylums. And then there's how he got elected. He made deals with terrorists to keep Americans hostage to make the Dems look weak. That's not me being a Nut Job, that's a matter of fact. I don't understand why that's not a bigger deal...
Romney ran Bane capital and presided over them while they picked successful companies clean. During the election a bunch of folks working in a pharmaceuticals factory came to him to see if he'd save their jobs. He called the cops on them and had them escorted off the premise. That's how little regard the guy had for workers.
Bush Sr could have been a lot worse. So I'll give you that. But he gave us Bush Jr, and dear lord was his presidency a disaster. There are kids who have never known an America at peace getting ready for college thanks to him. And the 2008 market crash. To be fair it was Regan's deregulation and Clinton continuing it that caused that. But Bush Jr (and Sr) knew it would happen and both could have stopped it.
My point is the left has been right. Over and over again we've been right. Fat lot of good it's done us. Being right doesn't feel good. And it doesn't make anyone else feel good.
in law with rights given to slave holders. Yes, I know there's plenty of defacto slavery (we've brought it back here in the states by forcing prisoners and illegal aliens to work) but that's not the same has having the official government legally recognize slavery.
America was the last country on planet earth to formally disavow slavery.
the poorest still pay sales tax, often when they buy food and medicine. If you go one step up from the poorest and into the working poor you'll find they pay a very high percentage of taxes. State sales tax are not usually progressive. They pay property taxes, Vehicle license taxes, the aforementioned sales tax, etc. The federal programs intended to counterbalance this ("earned income") have been cut back to the point where full time minimum wage disqualifies you. Hell, Missouri just put a work requirement in place for Medicaid but didn't raise the ceiling before you don't qualify for it. Meaning you're forced to go to work to keep access to healthcare but then lose it if you meet the requirement. The poor are well and truly fucked.
there's nothing candid about it. This would have been a carefully prepared statement. It would be far more interesting to have a video of them talking about Trump in a boardroom meeting.
so he effectively does. We do that so they can dodge the higher taxes on income vs capital gains. As a result the economy is constantly booming and busting thanks to stock buy backs and mass layoffs used to boost stock price. The groundwork for all this was laid out by Reagan and continued by Bill Clinton & Bush Jr (Bush Sr mostly left it alone, but he didn't help undo any of it).
I am by no means clueless. I'm fully aware of how our distorted economy works. I'm also aware of what Bezo's is doing. Bernie's been getting some traction by pointing out my tax dollars subsidize his horrendous working conditions. That his workforce couldn't function as human beings without $150 billion a year of subsidies I (and you too) pay for.
Bezo's is doing two things. First, drumming up some free press. But second and just as important, he's giving guys like you an out. See, somewhere you know that the correct solution is to force Bezos to pay a living wage and end both abuse of his workers and the taxpayers. But somewhere else you don't want to see minimum wage go up. The most common reason is you're afraid prices are going to go up and, statistically, you're probably living paycheck to paycheck (70-80% of Americans do depending on how you run the numbers). Like me you're using Amazon's borderline slave labor to buy things you need at discount to make up for declining wages.
None of this is the correct solution. It's all just more supply side economics. In the end it'll continue to chip away at your standard of living. It's a battle you will not win. What's needed now more than ever (thanks Nixon, for the slogan) is _demand_ side economics. It's either that or we, the working class, will just keep losing ground....
This is about 8 days pay for him. That sounds like a lot (8 days pay for me is around $1800 bucks) but if I give $1800 to charity that's a big impact on my life. When you're pulling in $260 million a day it's hardly noticeable.
I'm fed up with ultra rich trying to buy us off with token charitable donation in the hopes we don't demand they take care of their workers. He can start by paying his employees enough that they're not living in the parking lot of his warehouses (excuse me, "fullfillment centers") and they can get off food stamps. Then let's see him give enough to charity that it actually impacts his quality of life.
As it stands I feel like we're being made to go begging to the rich for the basic things needed to run a country and a society...
Obligatory Niel Gaiman quote.
but America was the last country on earth to maintain a practical legal apparatus for slavery. We fought a civil war for it (yeah, it was "State's rights" but the "right" we was fighting over was the right to own people).
Moreover, we maintained the institution even when it was no longer economically viable (the South was hurting because they had too much capital tied up in slaves that needed to be spent on machines & industrialization). America was maintaining slavery for social reasons. We wanted those slaves as a sort of social buffer. It helped keep poor white southerners in their place since they could look down on the black slaves and feel OK about their (appalling) living conditions because, hey, at least I'm not a slave.
I remember hearing complaints about this back in the mid 90s. It was probably never a good idea to use those terms, but, well, tech was dominated by nerdy white men. They didn't mean anything by it, but it didn't occur to them that slavery might be a touchy subject for some.
longer than it was even useful (the Northern states were out performing the Southern one's economically because the south had too much capital tied up in slaves). We also fought a civil war over it.
I've had those experiences here in the states just the same. The only upside to America is that when I wanted a couple bumps on my head removed I had it done immediately. But for anything that was complicated or needed a specialist I had to wait. I had heart palps that made me feel like I was having mini heart attacks and I had to wait 3 weeks to get in to see a specialist. I never did see the specialist, just his Nurse practitioner. That cost me $800 bucks out of pocket, and I had some of the best insurance you can get.
they're your ruling class. The only time this is not true is when specific action is taken to prevent it from happening. Left alone the rich will form power structures of their own that are government in practice if not name.
This is why "small" government is basically impossible. Government is too useful a tool. Like a box of loaded rifles sitting around waiting to be used. If you don't pick them up and use the somebody else will.
an iPhone for his college age kid I'd like to personally thank Apple for making the X so undesirable and thereby saving me $200-$300 dollars. I hope to see more of these cost saving measures. Maybe a partnership with Microsoft?
they made more 75kWh batteries than 60kWh ones and rather than sit on them put them in cheaper vehicles.
they're still used to buy drugs, which keeps the value up. Also money laundering. Now, if the gov't cracks down on the laundering plus legalizes drugs...
even with a group. You're interacting with that group, and the group is generally 3-5 max. Public speaking usually means a group of 10+ that you're not interacting with except maybe for a short question/answer phase at the end.
There are times when I think we subject people to unpleasant things just to do it. I know that there's lots of folks who, because they got ran through the wringer when they were kids want to see kids growing up go through the same. e.g. it's not "fair" that they had to suffer and the next gen doesn't.
don't have the resources to make kill bots that can present any real threat. I don't just mean they're incapable of building them (they are) but they don't have enough raw materials. China won't bother with kill bots because they've got plenty of expendables. Russia is a joke of a country that wouldn't be a threat if US politics weren't such a disaster.
I'll tell you want _does_ worry me about kill bots: the rich using them to do away with the need to take care of the working class. As it stands the ultra wealthy have to fear being disposed in a coup by the military they use to oppress. That goes away once they have kill bots. They not only don't need us they don't have to fear us.
I think this is all basically inevitable unless we get to work building a society where nobody's left behind and everyone's taken care of and do it now before they've got their autonomous weapons. We either create a culture that says everybody, no matter how lazy or worthless, deserves a decent life and then make it happen or we get ready for a time when because the least of use can be declared worthless _all_ of us can be.
his teachers dumped all over him. He wasn't a very likable kid (not his fault, Autism and whatnot). This kind of crap didn't stop until Columbine. The kids were still bullying but at least the teachers stopped. I guess my point is don't rely on teachers, who are overworked and prone to the same human defects as your average bully, to take care of the kids. They crap teachers didn't stop shitting on kids they don't like because they suddenly got compassion. They were afraid of being murdered.
Honestly, if you've got to your Junior year in high school and still hate public speaking then you're going to hate it for life. If a big enough carrot is dangled (or a stick) you might get over it, but rather than spending time hoping for a carrot that might never come the kid's time is probably better spent being left the fuck alone to study.
when we don't need them to work to advance the overall goals of a decent civilization what the hell difference does it make if they faff about all day? Do you suggestion we create miserable toil for them just so our society can be "awesome"? Also, citation needed. We're only just now entering a phase where there's going to be more people than work to do.
There's a dozen other reasons why you're wrong. One man's idleness is another's fulfillment.
Judging by your sig you're neck deep in right wing, puritanical propaganda. That's not going to work anymore. We can't just forge ahead and hope for the best. We're heading for a post-work world whether you like it or not. Our options are to let folks do their own thing, create phony (probably military) jobs for them or let them live in abject, horrifying poverty. Well, there's one more option, we could go full Amish and put a stop to tech. But if you think the ruling class is gonna let that happen you really haven't been paying attention to anything that happened post WWI.
Also, funny how we rag on the working class for being idle but never on the rich....
I don't recall the ACA having anything in it that would make insurance companies pay $2800 for a $15 treatment. There are several laws that prevent the gov't from negotiating drug prices and prevent consumers from importing drugs, but those weren't part of the ACA.
We have a _very_ efficient single payer healthcare system. Medicare. All we need to do now is expand it to everybody.
I want to nationalize the _paying_ for healthcare. It's an important distinction.
internationally is that you're buying from countries that have single payer healthcare and therefore can negotiate much, much better drug prices than private insurance companies can/do.
The free market doesn't solve drug prices. There really is only one solution and it's single payer. Healthcare doesn't work like traditional goods because a) unless you have an 8 year degree you lack the necessary information to make informed purchase, b) it's a matter of life or death, meaning you can't really shop around and c) you need it infrequently enough that you can't rely on repeat purchases to weed out low quality (I buy a new video card every 2 years or so but I'll probably only have 1 set of heart stints).
if you accept the premise of private, for profit insurance as a means to access medicine and healthcare and that these companies will be privately traded companies with shareholders then yes, that's where the moral imperative lies. This is one of the consequences of such a system.
We already know the solution is single payer healthcare. We can see it working in a dozen countries. The question is will we swallow our pride long enough to vote the sorts of people in that'll give it to us?
or suffered from Ennui. Their problem was they lost control of their machines and were killed by them. So long as we don't hook out machines up to our brains while we sleep I think we'll just do fine.
Also, you're entire post is predicated on the idea that if people aren't working to survive they don't know what to do with themselves. That couldn't be further away from the truth if it tried. People can and will keep themselves busy with hobbies, family life, researching their own interests, etc. The only reason why we have this notion that if you don't work you're life is worthless is that it was instilled in us by our ruling class. Given enough education and critical thinking we can get over it when the time comes.