Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Criptfeind]

I'll just ignore the insult and avoid pointing out that words typically have meanings, and just skip to this.

So, to be clear Sergarr. If a guy, say, in America, gets a loan, starts up a small one person business somewhere (say, a restaurant), does well enough, pays off his loan, doesn't have debt, and is sitting there as the sole owner and employe of this restaurant. What would you call that? Is he a capitalist? Or a communist? Or a socialist. Does it matter how society around him works? Or does it not?

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Ok, while I don't think thise discussion about "capitalism" is productive or well-informed, I'd like to point out that Zanzkutzen's argument is utter BS.

A) Just about every study I've ever read shows that boosting the minimum wage to a reasonable level (I'm not saying "Let's give everyone 5-figures salaries here) boost employment. Simply put, the people that will earn more due to a minimum wage increase will spend that cash, boosting the overall economy. It's especially important in a situation like now, where US corporation are sitting on huge pile of cash: they clearly can afford to hire more workers, they just don't because there is no extra demand for their products.

B) The simple way to make sure a minimum wage is not eroded over time is to have it indexed to inflation. It's frankly ridiculous that this isn't already the case in the US.

My argument is based upon the assumption that no corporation wants to lower their profit margin and that people who are more experienced desire to be paid more.  It could be raised carefully, to where corporations would see it as not cutting too far into their wages.  It would take awhile longer, but, if it stays so that the increase is above inflation, then it might be able to be reached without corporations noticing.

Should note: if you think the minimum wage of the US is bad, some sit-down restaurants are allowed to pay a person below minimum wage, on the assumption that they'll make up the difference in tips.

Edit: Actually, the strategy of working over the long-term to slip stuff past the ones that hate legislation is probably the most effective tactic.

[Sergarr]

I'll just ignore the insult and avoid pointing out that words typically have meanings, and just skip to this.

So, to be clear Sergarr. If a guy, say, in America, gets a loan, starts up a small one person business somewhere (say, a restaurant), does well enough, pays off his loan, doesn't have debt, and is sitting there as the sole owner and employe of this restaurant. What would you call that? Is he a capitalist? Or a communist? Or a socialist. Does it matter how society around him works? Or does it not?

It obviously does, seeing as the society can easily change so that his business will become unprofitable and he'll be forced to work for others. Which can, for example, happen, if the large company starts buying many restaurants and damping the prices.

And I would call this person a private enterpriser.

[Lord Shonus]

Should note: if you think the minimum wage of the US is bad, some sit-down restaurants are allowed to pay a person below minimum wage, on the assumption that they'll make up the difference in tips.

Technically not true. While US law does allow a lower base pay rate for employees that recieve tips or commissions, their final rate can never be below Federal minimum wage, and most (if not all) states have mirrored that in their own minimum wage laws. If tips/commissions do not equal minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Should note: if you think the minimum wage of the US is bad, some sit-down restaurants are allowed to pay a person below minimum wage, on the assumption that they'll make up the difference in tips.

Technically not true. While US law does allow a lower base pay rate for employees that recieve tips or commissions, their final rate can never be below Federal minimum wage, and most (if not all) states have mirrored that in their own minimum wage laws. If tips/commissions do not equal minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference.

Which hardly matters, as it's SOP to terminate any employee who fails to achieve their wage with tips.

[Lord Shonus]

That's why I said "technically".

[Karlito]

So all this economic talk, but no discussion of Bostic v. Schaeffer?

The 9th Circuit's ruling overturned similar bans here in Nevada and in Idaho. I believe Clark County started issuing gay marriage licenses this morning.

[FearfulJesuit]

So all this economic talk, but no discussion of Bostic v. Schaeffer?

To wit: 4th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Virginia's same-sex marriage ban as un-Constitutional. The Supreme Court this week declined to hear any appeals from states in the case, meaning that the issue is settled as far as they're concerned. The 4th Circuit covers not only Virginia but NC, SC, Maryland and West Virginia as well.

To hear the Republicans in NC, this is activist judges thwarting the will of the people and subjecting us all to Sodom-and-Gomorrah style retribution from the LORD Almighty. The decision is expected to take effect in NC and SC within the next week or so. SC is already issuing marriage licenses in some jurisdictions, while NC is not. It's an embarassing as hell day when you're less progressive than South Carolina (with apologies to kaijyuu/Doctus).

Side note: The addition of NC, SC and WV to the list of states where same-sex marriage is legal (or at least not explicitly forbidden) brings the total to 30, or 60% of the United States. We're at a tipping point. Once Texas and Florida flip, the momentum will probably increase for Federal legislation to make it legal nationally.

Federal legislation doesn't mean squat. Same-sex marriage is firmly the courts' to handle.

Indeed, I could see how you can see this as the Court's conservative branch doing its best to halt the tide of change. If you're a conservative justice- say, Scalia and Thomas- and you've realized which way the wind is blowing, hearing the case means legalizing gay marriage across the nation. If you just refuse to hear the case, that does the same thing, but only in some states, and it saves you some of the embarrassment of actively telling social conservatives to go fuck themselves (which is exactly what a decision would do). It'll be a gradual process, with appeals making their way up to the Court over the next few years, getting turned down, and letting the lower decisions stand, until there aren't any more appeals to make and it's national.

(Same-sex discrimination? That's another story. But I wouldn't hold out hope for that until the GOP gets kicked out of the House.)

[Bauglir]

texas and florida flipping

redking dear, how do you envision this

waiting until the demographic shift kicks in?

Texas, at least, is a lot closer than you think. It's still definitely a demographic issue, but the urban areas tend to be surprisingly progressive. Things should start changing awfully fast in the next decade as people start dying off, although "by death" is probably the worst way for political change to happen.

[Angle]

Well, speaking of alternatives to capitalism, I've been throwing around ideas on that for a while. Here's my favourite:

This system is designed to be modular and decentralized, with both cooperation and competition at all levels. The basics, is that the economy is organized into a system of small enterprises, operating without money. Instead, they "Subscribe" to a Logistics Enterprise, that takes care of distributing goods between them. If you don't like the Logistics enterprise you've been working with, switch to a different one. The logistics can even trade amongst themselves, or an enterprise could subscribe to two different ones. In essence, a number of parallel, competing and cooperating planned economies. This system would need very thorough transparency, so that everyone involved can be sure no one else is cheating. And there would be additional challenges, particularly when it comes to paying your workers- perhaps a limited form of currency would be useful there. I'm thinking something that would be created on the spot by the people paying, and then consumed completely when a worker spends it. There would be regulations to how much a company can pay their workers, to encourage efficiency.

[Sergarr]

Well, speaking of alternatives to capitalism, I've been throwing around ideas on that for a while. Here's my favourite:

This system is designed to be modular and decentralized, with both cooperation and competition at all levels. The basics, is that the economy is organized into a system of small enterprises, operating without money. Instead, they "Subscribe" to a Logistics Enterprise, that takes care of distributing goods between them. If you don't like the Logistics enterprise you've been working with, switch to a different one. The logistics can even trade amongst themselves, or an enterprise could subscribe to two different ones. In essence, a number of parallel, competing and cooperating planned economies. This system would need very thorough transparency, so that everyone involved can be sure no one else is cheating. And there would be additional challenges, particularly when it comes to paying your workers- perhaps a limited form of currency would be useful there. I'm thinking something that would be created on the spot by the people paying, and then consumed completely when a worker spends it. There would be regulations to how much a company can pay their workers, to encourage efficiency.

I don't think removing money is a good idea tbh. It's a very useful tool, and without them, the trade, or treasure-keeping of any sort becomes nearly impossible.

And I don't see what's preventing the Logistics Enterprises from going the monopoly route (which is natural, because infrastructure is not cheap) and turning into full-scale governments in the end.

[Angle]

The fact that any of their cooperative enterprises can simply leave if they get abusive. This whole system would need some additional regulation, of course-Not being allowed to be larger than a certain threshold would be a good start.

[Frumple]

Well, speaking of alternatives to capitalism

Let's not? We've quipped a bit, and maybe thrown out a little metadiscussion, but as the OP states we should be trying to largely avoid the latter. This really isn't the place for it, especially considering the chances of the US strongly changing economic gears any time soon is horrifyingly slim.

A new thread would be fine, just... don't use this one.

[Sergarr]

The fact that any of their cooperative enterprises can simply leave if they get abusive. This whole system would need some additional regulation, of course-Not being allowed to be larger than a certain threshold would be a good start.

When they'll get abusive, it will already be too late.

Also, who will carry out the function of regulation?

EDIT: I'll agree that this discussion is not really on-topic.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, that sounds to me like just splitting off a government's economic duties from its others, and making it a planned economy. Depending on the size of the logistics groups, you might wind up with a more or less centralized global economy, but I don't actually see it changing that much. Best case, it's functionally the same as "American Lower Middle Class", where you're still basically a wage slave living paycheck to paycheck until retirement, when you can hopefully relax. If you want to relate hypothetical post-scarcity economics to American politics, we should probably start from how Americans tend to see the economy:

-Regulation is inherently bad. It's only to be used where there's a clear good outweighing that bad.
-Government is assumed to be inefficient. Wherever possible, privatize.
-Greed is a useful motivator. Tangible or financial rewards are the best incentives.
-It should be possible for anybody to start a successful business. It need not be easy, likely, or low-risk.
-The world is unpredictable. Foresight should not be required for the system to work.

That said, even this explicit attempt to drag the conversation on-topic is only yanking it into a tangent. This is still too abstract, and moreover almost completely divorced from politics. We'd need a tangent off of this tangent to discuss how government ought to interact with such a thing, and we don't really have a blank check to discuss all this other stuff just because it's a foundation for a conversation that might happen and might be on-topic.