The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

I had no doubt that would have thought any different. It is what we have all been conditioned to accept through centuries of panic over corporations and wealth in general.

[StrangeSox]

I think we'd have to know the breakdown of who's in the 10% and how they benefit (or don't) from government expenditures. The CEOs of Northrup, Lockheed, etc. would definitely fall within that 10%, and they have definitely been made wealthy through government spending. Increased government spending doesn't necessarily mean decreased labor. The doctors at a Medicare-heavy practice may rely heavily on government spending for their livelihood, but they're still in that 10% that have seen their wages grow. The engineers at the various defense contractors are reliant on government spending, etc. You could also look at second-order effects, such as the wealth built in what were once uninhabitable deserts but were made livable, production places through various public irrigation and power projects.

 

Could you address the lack of correlation for your argument about labor force participation rates?

[Balta1701]

I had no doubt that would have thought any different. It is what we have all been conditioned to accept through centuries of panic over corporations and wealth in general.

And so here's where he realizes that the data presented do not support his position so instead of making a reasoned counter argument he throws out insults to everyone who isn't as good and enlightened as him and walks away.

 

Because no one could possibly come up with a similarly silly insult back.

[StrangeSox]

Eric Holder to announce that he's stepping down

[southsider2k5]

And so here's where he realizes that the data presented do not support his position so instead of making a reasoned counter argument he throws out insults to everyone who isn't as good and enlightened as him and walks away.

 

Because no one could possibly come up with a similarly silly insult back.

 

We've actually had this discussion before, and it didn't matter what I said. So pretend to trade insults, post a lot of wingnut materials, and walk away in the same place we would have been anyway.

[StrangeSox]

I didn't know that Piketty/Saez and FRED data series were considered wingnutty.

 

Can you address the apparent lack of correlation regarding your point about labor force participation rates? We saw the 90/10 splits steadily reverse themselves while labor force participation trended upwards, not downwards. I guess you could back out public sector employment from the participation rates so that you're only looking at private sector employment, but government employment as a percentage of population is at 30+ year lows with the latest decline starting in '02, so there's no good correlation there. Actually, for the period of '02 onward, we see government spending increase while government employment sinks like a stone.

 

edit: here's the Brookings Institute writing on government employment levels:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/...eenstone-looney

Edited September 25, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

We've actually had this discussion before, and it didn't matter what I said. So pretend to trade insults, post a lot of wingnut materials, and walk away in the same place we would have been anyway.

conditioned to accept through centuries of panic over corporations and wealth in general.

Yeah, that's totally "pretending" to trade insults. I've just been conditioned by years of dealing with other human beings to believe that it's an insult when people say/type negative things about me.

[Soxfest]

Eric Holder to announce that he's stepping down

Good he is the worst AG I have ever seen. He did not uphold Constitution on many levels, he enforced what he wanted and nothing else

Edited September 25, 2014 by Soxfest

[StrangeSox]

[farmteam]

Good he is the worst AG I have ever seen. He did not uphold Constitution on many levels, he enforced what he wanted and nothing else

You keep saying this and then don't pay attention to the replies. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Jake]

Stand Your Ground proponents say the law shouldn't apply to people being abused by their romantic partner

[StrangeSox]

Why on earth does Jimmy Johns have two-year non-compete clauses for hourly restaurant staff?

 

Non-competes really need to be reigned in.

[bmags]

Why on earth does Jimmy Johns have two-year non-compete clauses for hourly restaurant staff?

 

Non-competes really need to be reigned in.

 

Amen amen amen 100%

[StrangeSox]

I am glad that, when asked to sign a non-compete, our entire department said "lol no" and we never heard about it again.

 

eta: that's actually a great example of how collective bargaining/action can even help skilled white-collar professionals!

 

eta2: also, all of the mandatory arbitration clauses that are becoming more and more standard in employment contracts that effectively bar access to the real courts need to go

Edited October 16, 2014 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

I am glad that, when asked to sign a non-compete, our entire department said "lol no" and we never heard about it again.

 

eta: that's actually a great example of how collective bargaining/action can even help skilled white-collar professionals!

 

I think when it's not a new policy though, it is harder to say no after just getting a job offer to decline or ask to decline for most people.

 

I had a terrible time with a non-compete for my first job, where for a while they were applying to basically any marketing/tech/company that uses computers. Eventually they decided it wasn't best use of money.

[StrangeSox]

The most bizarre moment in political debate history happened last night. Rick Scott refused to take the stage for several minutes because Crist had a small fan under his podium, and Scott insisted that a "no electronics" clause in the debate rules disallowed a fan.

 

 

Scott being a petulant child aside, he and his camp should learn the difference between electronics and electrical devices.

Edited October 16, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

Why on earth does Jimmy Johns have two-year non-compete clauses for hourly restaurant staff?

 

Non-competes really need to be reigned in.

 

While it varies from state to state, non-competes do not hold up most of the time, especially in IL. Companies know this which is why they rarely attempt to enforce them.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Y2HH

[cabiness42]

While it varies from state to state, non-competes do not hold up most of the time, especially in IL. Companies know this which is why they rarely attempt to enforce them.

 

I can't imagine that it would be cost effective to even attempt to enforce non-competes for anybody making less than $50K or so a year.

[Balta1701]

I can't imagine that it would be cost effective to even attempt to enforce non-competes for anybody making less than $50K or so a year.

On the other side though, how many Jimmy Johns employees would have the financial resources to challenge that clause?

[bmags]

Except sometimes the threat to enforce is enough to threaten employment.

[StrangeSox]

Except sometimes the threat to enforce is enough to threaten employment.

Yeah, it's more about the chilling effect than actual legal enforcement.

[Jenksismyhero]

I am glad that, when asked to sign a non-compete, our entire department said "lol no" and we never heard about it again.

 

eta: that's actually a great example of how collective bargaining/action can even help skilled white-collar professionals!

 

eta2: also, all of the mandatory arbitration clauses that are becoming more and more standard in employment contracts that effectively bar access to the real courts need to go

 

The only issue I have with it is the lack of access to a jury and in some cases it's not "public" when you want it to be public. But for 99% of these cases, you're talking low amounts of money involved, so is it cost effective to clog up court systems?

 

In arbitration you're getting either old judges or really seasoned attorneys who probably know just as much if not more than current judges on the bench. Or, both parties get to select their own arbitrator (fellow attorney), who then independently selects a third. Again, usually an old judge or old seasoned attorney. It's a very fair process that does away with a lot of the technical requirements of a trial in court, but still has enough of a process to be legit. I mean it's still a trial - you present a case, put witnesses on the "stand," etc, you're just doing it in a large conference room instead of a courtroom. It's also more efficient since a lot of evidentiary rules are relaxed, usually to a Plaintiff's benefit.

 

Most of the contracts I've seen and worked on that deal with mandatory, binding arbitration are at low levels. For example auto insurance policies might have mandatory arbitration that's binding up to $50k, but not binding for anything above $50k. Cook County municipal cases (anything less than $55k) has mandatory arbitration as well, although it's not binding if the parties don't want it to be. Most if not all county court systems have similar mandatory arbitration programs for cases under X amount.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[cabiness42]

On the other side though, how many Jimmy Johns employees would have the financial resources to challenge that clause?

 

The lack of financial resources is exactly why it's so easy to challenge the clause. The cost of JJ paying their attorneys to go after you is more than you have to lose. Just ignore the clause and leave for another job if you want to. The company isn't going to go after you. You don't have enough money to be worth their effort.

[StrangeSox]

The lack of financial resources is exactly why it's so easy to challenge the clause. The cost of JJ paying their attorneys to go after you is more than you have to lose. Just ignore the clause and leave for another job if you want to. The company isn't going to go after you. You don't have enough money to be worth their effort.

So then why does JJ have this clause if they don't think it's beneficial? They paid their lawyers to draft it at some point.

 

edit: Non-competes aren't about blocking you as an individual as much as they are about preventing competitors from getting you, generally speaking. If they can prevent anyone who works at a JJ from working at a Subway, Quiznos, Pot Belly, etc. for two years, it makes their own workforce that much less mobile and that much harder for competitors to hire people. And just the threat of possible legal action can be enough to dissuade a substantial number of people.

Edited October 21, 2014 by StrangeSox

[cabiness42]

So then why does JJ have this clause if they don't think it's beneficial? They paid their lawyers to draft it at some point.

 

It's best benefit is the threat. It probably helps employee retention because most employees don't think about the high probability that the clause won't actually be enforced.