Print

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

[EnigmaticHat]

Why not both?  The economy gets 'better', but rules for corporations and the likes become even more lax. 
Basically throwing the mission accomplished party and then promptly burying your head in your ass until the rot of the economy becomes too much to ignore, again.

Yep. It's entirely possible for the US economy to continue getting better while more Americans get poorer and living standards go down. I'll never understand why some people would rather have their countries' numbers go up than look after their peeps tbh

I mean this is getting cliche, but the 1% run our country.  They pretty much ARE the numbers, since they're the ones that extract value when the value of our produced goods goes up.

I'd like to propose a hypothesis.  The DOW represents the economic state of the 1%, GDP represents the economic state of the nation.  Why do I say this?  Because the GDP only goes up when the value of produced goods goes up, but the DOW can go up because of downsizing, cut wages or cut costs.  AKA, increasing the 1%'s share.  Since spent money isn't destroyed, its just transferred to other companies or to workers.  Hence company spending isn't necessarily bad for the country as a whole, but company production is always at least a little good for our country (since it makes our currency more valuable for the sake of importing goods).

The 1% need only one thing to keep being the 1%.  They need a place to store their money where it will keep pace with inflation.  They have that, they'll stay rich.  They lose that, they don't stay rich.  Right now mutual funds are where they go for that.

[redwallzyl]

Shitty situations for immigrants is good for business. easier to exploit them. the immigration system is a continuing mess becasue someone is benefiting.

also this thread title is a bit out dated now.

Ispil, do you happen to be the same as the M&T one because that would be rather a interesting coincidence.

[smjjames]

also this thread title is a bit out dated now.

Calling it a benghazi might be a stretch, but it's a nice shorthand for 'someone f'd up'.

Also, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake has said that he isn't running for re-election in 2018.

[Loud Whispers]

Because we have the best numbers, Euroscrubs.

The EU achieved its top status in 2007. That year, its GDP was $14.4 trillion, while U.S. GDP was only $13.86 trillion. The EU held onto its premier position through the 2008 financial crisis and the eurozone debt crisis until 2013, when the United States briefly regained the top spot. (Source: "Rank Order GDP," CIA World Factbook.)

Yurodigits cannot compare to such GROSSLY INCANDESCENT NUMBERS
We are unworthy

I mean this is getting cliche, but the 1% run our country.  They pretty much ARE the numbers, since they're the ones that extract value when the value of our produced goods goes up.
I'd like to propose a hypothesis.  The DOW represents the economic state of the 1%, GDP represents the economic state of the nation.  Why do I say this?  Because the GDP only goes up when the value of produced goods goes up, but the DOW can go up because of downsizing, cut wages or cut costs.  AKA, increasing the 1%'s share.  Since spent money isn't destroyed, its just transferred to other companies or to workers.  Hence company spending isn't necessarily bad for the country as a whole, but company production is always at least a little good for our country (since it makes our currency more valuable for the sake of importing goods).
The 1% need only one thing to keep being the 1%.  They need a place to store their money where it will keep pace with inflation.  They have that, they'll stay rich.  They lose that, they don't stay rich.  Right now mutual funds are where they go for that.

So... How do you fix this problem without going full gulag

[smjjames]

Because we have the best numbers, Euroscrubs.

The EU achieved its top status in 2007. That year, its GDP was $14.4 trillion, while U.S. GDP was only $13.86 trillion. The EU held onto its premier position through the 2008 financial crisis and the eurozone debt crisis until 2013, when the United States briefly regained the top spot. (Source: "Rank Order GDP," CIA World Factbook.)

Yurodigits cannot compare to such GROSSLY INCANDESCENT NUMBERS
We are unworthy

I mean this is getting cliche, but the 1% run our country.  They pretty much ARE the numbers, since they're the ones that extract value when the value of our produced goods goes up.
I'd like to propose a hypothesis.  The DOW represents the economic state of the 1%, GDP represents the economic state of the nation.  Why do I say this?  Because the GDP only goes up when the value of produced goods goes up, but the DOW can go up because of downsizing, cut wages or cut costs.  AKA, increasing the 1%'s share.  Since spent money isn't destroyed, its just transferred to other companies or to workers.  Hence company spending isn't necessarily bad for the country as a whole, but company production is always at least a little good for our country (since it makes our currency more valuable for the sake of importing goods).
The 1% need only one thing to keep being the 1%.  They need a place to store their money where it will keep pace with inflation.  They have that, they'll stay rich.  They lose that, they don't stay rich.  Right now mutual funds are where they go for that.

So... How do you fix this problem without going full gulag

Regulate those mutual funds, etc? Of course, the Republicans are going to be against that.

[EnigmaticHat]

The DOW vs GDP thing was just speculating that they measure different things (since most people quote them as a general representation of the US economy, but they don't always agree with each other).

In terms of the 1% running everything?  Boring get money out of politics stuff.  Find a way to challenge Citizens United, pass laws that meaningfully curtail large donors and lobbyists.  Its all legal bribery and people have been calling to get rid of it forever, but no one has successfully done it.

[Lord Shonus]

So... How do you fix this problem without going full gulag

My strategy would be:

First: Classify every incoming dollar as income, regardless of source. This means that bonuses, investment profit, stock dividends, and everything else of that sort would be identical to salary.

- This will eliminate a lot of the dodges used to avoid or reduce tax rates

Second: Raise the uppermost tax brackets to Eisenhower levels (inflation adjusted, this would top out an income bracket of $1.7 million with a 91% tax rate).

- This would drastically increase government income, allowing the government to actually pay for much needed educational, infrastructure, and safety net programs.

Third: Amend minimum wage laws to require that the highest compensation level in any company must be no more than 500%-600% of the lowest (possibly with allowances for increasing the gap for very large companies).

- This would force employers to either pay their employees a decent wage, or take a significant personal income hit. This also ties into the first step above, as they wouldn't be able to hide their own income as bonuses to avoid the hit.

Fourth: Require that every person employed in the United States has an employment contract. Ban at-will hiring, temp services, and close the "independent contractor" loophole.
- This will prevent a lot of employment discrimination, and put a stake through the heart of the too-common practice of keeping turnover extremely high.

Fifth: Scale ALL fines, court awards, and similar penalties to the income of the punished party.
- This will ensure that nobody will ever be able to take the "Eh, if anybody ever calls us on this we'll just pay the fine and blacklist them." option.

[Loud Whispers]

The DOW vs GDP thing was just speculating that they measure different things (since most people quote them as a general representation of the US economy, but they don't always agree with each other).

In terms of the 1% running everything?  Boring get money out of politics stuff.  Find a way to challenge Citizens United, pass laws that meaningfully curtail large donors and lobbyists.  Its all legal bribery and people have been calling to get rid of it forever, but no one has successfully done it.

So maybe if it is sought in concessions, so pushes for transparency + accountability could slowly have politicians give up their rights to enrich themselves from the donations of dolla wizards? Stuff like these peeps could be helpful. Also get rid of incompetent congress peeps, if they don't read what they legislate, if they can't tell Crimea from Korea when advocating for war, there must be some mechanism to have them resign ffs

*Metaedit
@LordShonus
The third option seems immediately feasible and would likely get popular bipartisan support for obvious reasons
The fifth I worry won't apply to those already too big to jail

[smjjames]

@LordShonus
The third option seems immediately feasible and would likely get popular bipartisan support for obvious reasons

I'm not so sure about that, it might seem bipartisan, but the moment business lobbyists start complaining, the Republicans will be an instant no.

[redwallzyl]

Yep, I am the same one.

Cool, didn't expect that.

[Dorsidwarf]

banning individual contractors is kind of a bad idea tbh?
Like you'd be forcing a lot of independent specialists back into the hands of big companies if my family's experience is anything to go by.

Plus im pretty sure the line between a contracting company and a temp agency is pretty blurry. Does your new set of laws demand that companies must have everything they ever do done by in-house teams?

[Lord Shonus]

The comment on independent contractors was intended to block a specific and increasingly common loophole where companies avoid paying benefits and several other costs by declaring that none of their employees actually work for the company - despite working a normal job only for said company, they are actually self-employed independent contractors that just happen to be under exclusive contracts. This is why I said "close the "independent contractor" loophole" instead of "ban independent contractors".

As for temp services, the key provision here is "temp". A lot of companies are staffing almost exclusively with "89-day temps" - bringing people in at minimum wage for the longest period they are allowed to without actually hiring the person, ensuring that nobody ever gets a raise and that they can overwork the employee as much as they want to. Staffing agencies or recruiters that are "hire-in" from day 1 would be fine.

[redwallzyl]

So... How do you fix this problem without going full gulag

My strategy would be:

First: Classify every incoming dollar as income, regardless of source. This means that bonuses, investment profit, stock dividends, and everything else of that sort would be identical to salary.

- This will eliminate a lot of the dodges used to avoid or reduce tax rates

Second: Raise the uppermost tax brackets to Eisenhower levels (inflation adjusted, this would top out an income bracket of $1.7 million with a 91% tax rate).

- This would drastically increase government income, allowing the government to actually pay for much needed educational, infrastructure, and safety net programs.

Third: Amend minimum wage laws to require that the highest compensation level in any company must be no more than 500%-600% of the lowest (possibly with allowances for increasing the gap for very large companies).

- This would force employers to either pay their employees a decent wage, or take a significant personal income hit. This also ties into the first step above, as they wouldn't be able to hide their own income as bonuses to avoid the hit.

Fourth: Require that every person employed in the United States has an employment contract. Ban at-will hiring, temp services, and close the "independent contractor" loophole.
- This will prevent a lot of employment discrimination, and put a stake through the heart of the too-common practice of keeping turnover extremely high.

Fifth: Scale ALL fines, court awards, and similar penalties to the income of the punished party.
- This will ensure that nobody will ever be able to take the "Eh, if anybody ever calls us on this we'll just pay the fine and blacklist them." option.

Also break the monopolies and cartels. Actually enforce the damn anti trust laws. But fundamentally you need a change in the governing philosophy away from neoliberalist policies toward social policies. Unlike what they would want you to think social spending does in fact work really well and regulations are very necessary to prevent offloading of externalities from companies to the public.

to sustain a stable system we need permanent high levels of wealth redistribution from the rich to everyone else though. Most recent growth goes straight into the pockets of the 1% and that helps on one but them and destabilizes society.

[Akura]

I'm a bit opposed to the fourth thing there. One of the benefits of at-will work is you can tell your boss where they can shove the job if the job is unbearable. Everyone being forced into an employment contract puts that in the toilet and lets it rip onto it. Also, if the contract stipulates a certain level of job performance, you can't intentionally get yourself fired by working badly(which is done now because voluntarily quitting blocks you from unemployment benefits), since your employer can sue you for breach of contract. Or worse, set the bar too high and pretty much rob their employees.

I also don't see how it would remove employment discrimination. Nor is there anything on that list keeping companies from just going to some other country where they wouldn't have such laws.

[Telgin]

The comment on independent contractors was intended to block a specific and increasingly common loophole where companies avoid paying benefits and several other costs by declaring that none of their employees actually work for the company - despite working a normal job only for said company, they are actually self-employed independent contractors that just happen to be under exclusive contracts. This is why I said "close the "independent contractor" loophole" instead of "ban independent contractors".

I've worked under this before and agree that it's BS.  I paid double the taxes because I was "self employed" and got no benefits.

The company eventually went "legit" and I'm still with them as a salaried employee who actually only works normal hours instead of the exploitative BS most salaried employees deal with, but it was still very sketchy stuff at the time and I was very unsure about staying while that went on.  I would be happy to see the practice go away.

Then again, how do you word legislation to ban that without banning independent contractors entirely?