Print

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

[hector13]

Clinton apparently did not win the popular vote for either of his terms also, by relatively big margins.

>.>

What the hell are you talking about?

1992 he got 44.9 million or 43% of the vote to 39.1 million by Bush and 19 million by Perot. 370 EVs.
1996 he got 47.4 mllion or 49.2% of the vote to 39.1 million by Bush and 8 million by Perot. 379 EVs.

Hilldog got 65.8 million or 48.2% of the vote to 62.9 million by dumbfuck.

A narrow plurality and just shy of majority is in no way losing the popular vote.

Did you join the forum just to reply to a two week old post about a 30 year old election?

Spoiler: xkcd (click to show/hide)

[Duuvian]

Huh? What do you mean by "conservatives...happily utilize corporate taxation"? The GOP is notorious for corporate tax breaks, especially for corporations and the rich. They are about tax breaks regardless of the consequences.

We've talked about wage depression via temp workers before, albeit indirectly, here on the forums. The reason temp workers are attractive is because benefits laws don't scale the cost of those workers proportionally to full-time workers. A temp worker might cost a company (wage x 1.15), but a full-time worker might cost a company (wage x 1.25).  So there are two factors: one is that the wage for temp workers is lower¹ and the other is that the cost multiplier is lower.  At the very least, policies could be in place to make the multiplier the same. This won't address the other issues that make people willing to accept low pay for a low-commitment job.

¹This is odd in the first place; consultants, for example, get higher per-hour payments partly because the work is unsteady, and the hiring company is willing to pay a premium to avoid a long-term contract. Also look at other spot markets: Take electricity as an example. If you've got to buy power on the spot market, it's generally much more expensive than long-term contract prices.

So if employers are in need of more workers than they have now, you would think temp workers should cost more.   So what makes temp jobs less? I place this proximally on the job takers: If companies need temp workers, they should be paying a premium.  But what happens is these jobs are not spot needs by the employer - they are demonstrably "I need some cash, any I can get" jobs of desperation for the employees.

So the only way to fix this is to help people not be desperate for cash. This is why I said it's proximally a job-taker problem. Because there is no way, just by looking at wages, to distinguish between say a student just looking for a few extra dollars and someone who is trying to scrape by and not get kicked out of their housing.  Pressure to just afford an apartment, or buy food, etc. is a complex issue; that is, the companies "not paying a fair wage" aren't the sole problem, it's also the real estate companies, it's the food conglomerates, it's cities not having good public transportation or messed up zoning laws, it's physical and mental health care cost burdens, etc. So merely trying to address the wage side is never going to work; this needs a coordinated change across many aspects of the economy simultaneously.

In my short life I've never seen an attempt at a coordinated change - only attempts at one aspect of a problem, which inevitably doesn't work, because it's just pushing the problem to another area.

I agree with this, thanks for enlightening me. By corporate taxation I used poor phrasing and invoked an unrelated term. By that I meant the corporation taxing the worker; though obviously not by definition a tax, but to the worker it still is someone taxing their paycheck (in this case for having made a single phone call after I did the paperwork). I suppose it was wrong to attribute it to conservatives, you are right. That has just been the experience I've had with the bosses I've had from that.

I hear you about the sweeping change bit. That would probably require a system with more than two parties, so probably something with lots of parties so the 3rd won't spoil and not-crazy reformers could maybe have a shot at a coalition. I've got my hopes up twice now with the Democrats having the presidency and the congress. They do more than Republicans with it thank god but still just seem to bog down, be lazy, have a few corrupt members fuck everything up, or fight each other in coastal factional power struggles that are slowly extending to other urban areas by means of the factionalization.

[MorleyDev]

With all the recent layoffs going on, the thing with them is...You don't hire for work you have now, you hire for the work you expect to have a year from now. Onboarding and training takes time, so you don't want to be hiring people when you don't have the staff to train them because you're already swamped with work.

Lots of businesses went on post-COVID hiring sprees because they expected business to quickly grow back to pre-COVID levels and then continue to grow. At the time, this was a fairly sensible prediction to make. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened because of...well, *gestures at everything*. So most businesses now have more people than they have work for and no expectation that those people will be needed for work in the immediate-to-near future. Especially because many of those businesses took on debt to keep afloat through COVID, meaning they can't easily borrow again to try and power through this everything too.

Thus, layoffs.

EDIT: Funny thing is as was explained to me often the businesses owe the money...to themselves. If the owner loans the business the money it's still a debt, and the owner can't just write it off as 'all their money anyway' because that's basically tax fraud and suddenly the IRS get very interested in you. This is one of the many things that DT is being dragged around various courts for.

[Maximum™]

Clinton apparently did not win the popular vote for either of his terms also, by relatively big margins.

>.>

What the hell are you talking about?

1992 he got 44.9 million or 43% of the vote to 39.1 million by Bush and 19 million by Perot. 370 EVs.
1996 he got 47.4 mllion or 49.2% of the vote to 39.1 million by Dole and 8 million by Perot. 379 EVs.

Hilldog got 65.8 million or 48.2% of the vote to 62.9 million by dumbfuck.

A narrow plurality and just shy of majority is in no way losing the popular vote.

Did you join the forum just to reply to a two week old post about a 30 year old election?

Spoiler: xkcd (click to show/hide)

Nah man, I lost access to my old email account with my dead comp and have no idea what the password for Max™ was, and all of my cookies and whatnot are lost.

Also I completely forgot about Dole when I posted that.

[Random_Dragon]

Nah man, I lost access to my old email account with my dead comp and have no idea what the password for Max™ was, and all of my cookies and whatnot are lost.

Also I completely forgot about Dole when I posted that.

Bruh I mistook you for a sockpuppet of Maximum Spin before I realized you're arguing against his usual alt-right rhetoric XD

[Frumple]

Well... house speaker circus election effects continue. GOP's current main choice, the guy that very intentionally looked the other way on those rape cases, managed to lose a vote between last attempt and this one. Gymmy boy's probably done, at this point, if you're being kind and assuming he had a chance to start with.

So we're in, uh. Gods, I don't even know anymore, time is a broken construct. Week two of there being no GOP speaker for the house? Something like that. Roughly four and a half weeks before the government shuts down.

[hector13]

He wasn’t the main choice, he was second choice. Main choice stepped out of the race without going to a vote, presumably because he wants to remain House Majority Leader. Second choice got 200 votes yesterday and is projecting 198 today after two no’s from yesterday flipped to yes and four yes’s from yesterday flipped to no.

[Frumple]

That'd be why I said current main choice, silly

Far as I'm aware the vote's over, though? Gymboy lost net one in the end, from mention I've seen. Haven't taken steps to actually confirm, because the precise details of GOP dysfunction don't super matter from my position, but eh.

Best joke of the event, though, someone apparently voted for Boehner. Can just imagine that poor sack of shit going, "Oh hell no."

[hector13]

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-67149185

Live updates from the Beeb, should anyone be interested.

[Maximum™]

Nah man, I lost access to my old email account with my dead comp and have no idea what the password for Max™ was, and all of my cookies and whatnot are lost.

Also I completely forgot about Dole when I posted that.

Bruh I mistook you for a sockpuppet of Maximum Spin before I realized you're arguing against his usual alt-right rhetoric XD

Look for the ™ of goodness!

[Maximum Spin]

Just to be clear, the House does have a speaker pro tem, McHenry. Unlike earlier this year when they were trying to actually start the session in the first place, nothing's stopping it from going about ordinary business.

Also, just to be clear about another thing, the guy in the coaching scandal in Jordan's past isn't actually accused of any rapes.

Bruh I mistook you for a sockpuppet of Maximum Spin before I realized you're arguing against his usual alt-right rhetoric XD

You must spend a lot of time in fear of the dangerous alt-right groups plaguing the country like the Green Party, Bernie Sanders supporters, and Black Lives Matter.

[hector13]

I think enough Republicans want a permanent speaker before going about regular business that McHenry doesn’t have enough support to actually do it.

I think there might also be issues around nobody really knowing how much power he has to do anything, but… they could also vote to give him those powers, even temporarily until they do find a permanent replacement for him.

[anewaname]

This "no speaker" situation could go on until the funding CR expires, because it is in the best interests of the Freedom Caucus. They don't care if the institution cannot function, they only want control of it. The group voting against Jordan will cave when that funding CR expires.

While fascists are in the minority, they attempt to weaken the state institutions to gather support to their cause, by creating reasons for public discontent through their own actions.

[Maximum™]

Good lord, Spin, you're kidding right?

Like, I'm not going to bother breaking down how dumb it is just lumping green/sanders/blm together like a monolithic block, or claiming parts of the generally accepted left wing of US politics is actually far right, and just say goodbye.

[Maximum Spin]

Good lord, Spin, you're kidding right?

Y - yes. I'm kidding. I'm making a joke. Those groups are not far-right and neither am I.

This is like that time you told me being a vegetarian makes me fascist. I don't get it.