StrangeSox

Two points: cutting wage costs to ensure profitability for ownership who might otherwise move labor overseas is a large source of current inequality, not a solution to it. second, support for the claim that the reason most companies are going under is labor cost?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) Denied. Drugs: decriminalized, partial legalization, total legalization, current laws or even stricter laws?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) I forgot. No companies have gone bankrupt with union labor. That doesn't actually answer the question. If they currently aren't profitable, how does cutting the union laborer's wages by 50% so that profits for ownership can be maintained result in an additional position being filled? Or, assuming an additional position, Balta's point that ownership now has 2x production for the same cost means that you've just class-warfared yourself decreased wages for workers and increased profitability. How does this result in across-the-board equality instead of increased inequality?

People found to be using drugs during testing: simply denied benefits or prosecuted?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Who would profit from turning one $100,000 union job into two $50,000 union jobs? Where is this magical demand for increased labor coming from? Why wouldn't ownership simply pocket the $50k they just saved on labor?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) Great. I am willing to cede drug tests for welfare any form of government funds at all, including SS, Medicare, tax deductions and government contracts if we get the government out of any other paternalistic decision making. I am willing to make that sacrifice. Let's not leave out the full scope of your position here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) If Robin Hood economics works at the top of the food chain, why does it quit working at the 1.01 percentile? Yes, this is very perplexing. Who profits from reduced labor costs? Such a mystery.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:23 PM) It absolutely proves my point. Wealth hasn't just been created at the 1% level. If people really believe in sacrifices for societal good, they don't get to sit them out because they are just well off, or even wealthy, and not ultra-wealthy. You're right, it hasn't been created "just" at the 1% level, just overwhelmingly so. You still haven't given an explanation at how unions earning less results in those below earning more. You haven't explained how unions earning less results in lower income and wealth inequality across the board, not simply between union and non-union labor, and how it wouldn't just result in bigger gains for that top 1%. You haven't even attempted to argue your point until you explain that. No, the point of that graph is to show the massive disparity in economic gains across income groups.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) They would be free to do so. They just couldn't force taxpayers to pay for them as they can now. This still leaves you with a paternalistic government deciding that drug use is a bad personal decision.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) Actually that changed at least in Illinois. You are allowed to make half of your benefit in wages and still receive your full benefit. this seems reasonable at a glance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) If drugs aren't bad, then why do we have clinics for treatment and recover at taxpayer expense? I'm not making a pro or con argument for drugs here. I'm using it to highlight that your claim of being in line with libertarian philosophy doesn't hold. The libertarian argument would be that anyone should be free to do as they please with their own bodies. At the very least, it should be completely decriminalized.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) The thing that really bothers me is that if someone goes on Welfare or UE, and they get a very low paying job, it works out worse for them than if they stay at home. I honestly don't know what the best solution to that is, but it is not a good model. Also, I agree with others that if a person is on UE, after some period, they should be required to do work FOR the government in some capacity. Part time would be best, so that they can continue their job search. You don't want someone on UE taking whatever job they can immediately find because they otherwise face destitution, though. Part of the point is to provide a cushion so that you don't end up with massive underemployment.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:15 PM) It squares with not wasting. Opting out squares with personal economic freedom. Having standards for distribution of funds is not different than anything else we do as a government. You've still got the core paternalistic assumption that drug use is a bad thing that government should control. This runs counter to just about any libertarian I've seen. I should be free to spend my SS check on pot or coke if I want--I sure as hell can spend it on booze. Second, you need to consider how expensive national drug testing of tens of millions of people would be and whether that would actually result in any form of cost savings.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) Actually you demonstrated my point perfectly. The next two quintiles saw plenty of growth as well. Why are they immune from "fair shares"? you really think this helps make your point? The gaps in growth between the bottom 99% are pretty tiny. The gap between "everyone else" or even the "top 9% below the top 1%" is huge. The goal is more equality across the spectrum, not the 4th-lowest quintile sacrificing so that the 5th lowest quintile is now equal but both are still in really bad shape. I know you don't agree with that goal. That doesn't make those who espouse that goal hypocrites. You still need to demonstrate how reduced union benefits and wages will result in increased wage gains for those below them. Explain how unions taking wage cuts mean increased wages for those below and not increased profits for those above.

yes, always. bmags, isn't this something covered in JOUR 101?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) Absolutely. A single Senator can pretty much shut down the Senate if he or she chooses to do so. If one Senator makes it clear they will not let a candidate come up for a vote, that candidate will not come up for a vote any time in the near future. The first stipulation was a reformation of the filibuster rules such that this tactic is only possible if they legitimately hold the floor by talking indefinitely.

Could a minority party hold things up in committee still? Obviously, if there's a D in the WH and an R Senate, they can just vote his appointments no if they so choose. There's political and philosophical reasons not to, but they could. But when there's a minority with 40-45 seats, could they really hold up nominees like that? It also seems like giving the Senate a bit of a pass by pointing out how many more people they need to confirm. It's not like it's just taking them a long time to vet and confirm, they're completely stopping the process. edit: I'm not asking for ideas that will actually be implemented, because I seriously doubt the Senate (or any branch of government) will voluntarily give themselves less control, even if their exercise of that control is reckless.

Here's a great illustration of why ss2k5's argument that the unions are being hypocritical is so wrong:

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) I counted 6 steps. there was a nice little slide in there, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) Any proposal that would actually be effective seems to me to involve Congress giving up a substantial fraction of their power in order to make the executive branch run more smoothly. I can't foresee any case where that will happen. Right, you don't want to remove or cripple the Senate's ability to actually advise and consent on a nominee. At the same time, something is clearly broken when a minority can refuse to confirm any nominee until substantial legislative changes to the department are made. Maybe the long-needed reformation of filibuster rules would be all that's needed.

But significantly more so if they have the bomb.

Does anyone have a good proposal for reforming this sort of Congressional sham of refusing to advise and consent on Executive appointments (yes, it goes both ways)? The few I've seen raise significant problems of their own and limit the ability of the Senate to actually advise and consent.

I can't find where Balta originally posted the news that Obama had appointed Cordray and three NLRB members recently, but thought this was important enough of an issue to merit its own thread. The Office of Legal Council released it's legal opinion on the legality of Obama's appointments today. It lays out their justification that these appointments were in fact legal. http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-...ons-opinion.pdf The executive summary: The fact that the Senate actually did conduct business at one of the pro forma sessions outside of the scope of this opinion may undercut their claims. Also that they use pro forma sessions to meet their Jan. 3rd Constitutional obligations.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:58 AM) The tendency to have arguments go to extremes and hyperbole drives me batty. And yet, I keep coming back for more punishment. I think I need help. Aside from me intentionally using class warfare rhetoric of the right to illustrate how silly it is to say it's a one-way street, what's so hyperbolic or extreme about my line of questioning to ss2k5? Do you see it as hypocritical for unions to advocate that other workers with less rights and protections than the unions should fight for better rights and protections themselves, and not fight against unions in a last-place-aversion manner?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) I love the game. I've spent hours just walking around. Between this game and Fallout. Lot's of hours walking around finding stuff. I have Fallout: NV next in the que. It'll probably be 3-4 months before I get around to playing any other games.