Progressives, part 3...

posted by CenterBHSFan

Had somebody post this to me on Twitter (removing names, of course):

I've been friends with this person for the better part of a decade, we used to work together. In my responses to him, I tried to keep in mind that he's from Europe (Belgium) and has a different idea of what is "fair" than most people in the US do. But it's amazing to me that so many people think it's "ok" to target paychecks based on feelings, at the core of the issue, of resentment.  

No one bats an eye at athlete or hollywood pay, but them big bad CEO's making money and keeping people employed...

I just had to put a stop to the discussion (as much as can be had on Twitter) when he posted this: 

It should be objective, not subjective. But if you decide your own wage, how is this different? Cutting wages on resentment is bad. Gaining wages by your own will is unfair.

 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Had somebody post this to me on Twitter (removing names, of course):

I've been friends with this person for the better part of a decade, we used to work together. In my responses to him, I tried to keep in mind that he's from Europe (Belgium) and has a different idea of what is "fair" than most people in the US do. But it's amazing to me that so many people think it's "ok" to target paychecks based on feelings, at the core of the issue, of resentment.  

I have never had a leftist/liberal legitimately define what "fair" is.  Next time someone brings it up, ask them to define it, because he/she most likely won't provide you any metrics at all and give you the typical emotional song & dance.   

This is especially true when it comes to taxes and they cry about paying your "fair share."  Somehow a flat tax where the Government is stealing an equal % of your paycheck across the board is not fair, but they also can't define what would be fair for their own worth.  

posted by like_that

I have never had a leftist/liberal legitimately define what "fair" is.  Next time someone brings it up, ask them to define it, because he/she most likely won't provide you any metrics at all and give you the typical emotional song & dance.   

This is especially true when it comes to taxes and they cry about paying your "fair share."  Somehow a flat tax where the Government is stealing an equal % of your paycheck across the board is not fair, but they also can't define what would be fair for their own worth.  

I actually tried to get them to explain this to me, in a roundabout way. I rep'd your post and dropped a link to the discussion. We are the only two involved at the moment so it branches off at different tweets, you'll have to click a few times to see the rest of the discussion. Who is who in this discussion is obvious.

posted by CenterBHSFan

I just had to put a stop to the discussion (as much as can be had on Twitter) when he posted this: 

Oh, man.  I would have zeroed in on that and made him explain it.

"How is it unfair to gain a wage by your own will?"

posted by iclfan2

No one bats an eye at athlete or hollywood pay, but them big bad CEO's making money and keeping people employed...

Bingo

posted by CenterBHSFan

I just had to put a stop to the discussion (as much as can be had on Twitter) when he posted this: 

The psychosis is real

posted by iclfan2

No one bats an eye at athlete or hollywood pay, but them big bad CEO's making money and keeping people employed...

Like everyone else, some CEO's are great a do their part to make the economy hum for others.  But there are a lot of shitty CEO's no matter how you want to measure it.  I have worked for two.  The worst one made 225 times the average employee at the company.  He loved flying on private jets, and made a  bet that lost the company $5 billion in shareholder value.  When he was fired, along with about 30% of the workforce to save the company from liquidation, he was paid ~$20 million in severance.  

That is one example of course.  But the point is that let's not try to paint CEO's as the heart and soul, salt-of-the-earth that makes our society work.  Many are good people.  Many, however are overvalued political monster narcissists.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Like everyone else, some CEO's are great a do their part to make the economy hum for others.  But there are a lot of shitty CEO's no matter how you want to measure it.  I have worked for two.  The worst one made 225 times the average employee at the company.  He loved flying on private jets, and made a  bet that lost the company $5 billion in shareholder value.  When he was fired, along with about 30% of the workforce to save the company from liquidation, he was paid ~$20 million in severance.  

 

That is one example of course.  But the point is that let's not try to paint CEO's as the heart and soul, salt-of-the-earth that makes our society work.  Many are good people.  Many, however are overvalued political monster narcissists.  

Even if they aren't good people, the free market/capitalism has inadvertently forced them to support families, save lives, lower prices, innovate, etc...  Imperfect capitalism is 1000000000000x than socialism and/or over regulation by the Government.  We always hear that "real socialism has never been tried," but neither has real capitalism and it still pwns anything with Government meddling.

posted by like_that

Even if they aren't good people, the free market/capitalism has inadvertently forced them to support families, save lives, lower prices, innovate, etc...  Imperfect capitalism is 1000000000000x than socialism and/or over regulation by the Government.  We always hear that "real socialism has never been tried," but neither has real capitalism and it still pwns anything with Government meddling.

My point had nothing to do with socialism.  I'm just saying that CEO's shouldn't be held up as the backbone of all that is good in our world.  If the people that work for corporations are capable, the company can do some of the things you list.  That's not the same as the CEO singlehandedly doing them.  There are some great CEO's who truly are the stuff that makes America go. But there are a lot of fucking assholes who get that chair because they will step on their mothers to do it.  You can usually read about one of these everyday in the WSJ.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

But there are a lot of fucking assholes who get that chair because they will step on their mothers to do it.  You can usually read about one of these everyday in the WSJ.  

I wasn't calling them anything other than CEOs. Of course there are terrible ones, and I still don't care how much they get paid. The money wouldn't magically flow to you or the employees. My point was it seems weird to outraged at CEO pay while rooting for Lebron and his $100M Nike deal at age 18.

posted by iclfan2

I wasn't calling them anything other than CEOs. Of course there are terrible ones, and I still don't care how much they get paid. The money wouldn't magically flow to you or the employees. My point was it seems weird to outraged at CEO pay while rooting for Lebron and his $100M Nike deal at age 18.

It's not an either or thing.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-restaurants-cut-staff-hours-to-cope-with-minimum-wage-hike-hitting-15/

Everyone’s a loser.

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Honestly I think most businesses that pay 15$ an hour save money in the longrun because they dont have to constantly change and replace staff.  Not only does this waste resources, but it can cost you money because of lost business due to bad customer service by new employees.

posted by geeblock

Honestly I think most businesses that pay 15$ an hour save money in the longrun because they dont have to constantly change and replace staff.  Not only does this waste resources, but it can cost you money because of lost business due to bad customer service by new employees.

That's a legitimate opinion, but shouldn't wages be determined by the employer and the prospective employee?

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-restaurants-cut-staff-hours-to-cope-with-minimum-wage-hike-hitting-15/

 

 

 

Everyone’s a loser.

 

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Thanks Rush

posted by queencitybuckeye

That's a legitimate opinion, but shouldn't wages be determined by the employer and the prospective employee?

I dont have a problem with that either, but if we want to solve our problem of people on public assistance, offering a job worth showing up for is a start.  At 8$ an hour it actually makes more sense to stay on welfare.  Also this is for full time employees, not part time workers at McDonalds.  I can understand your point for a mom and pop grocery store that has just a few employees, but Mcdonalds and walmart both make billions of dollars and also get billions in corporate welfare, and yet we subsidize their workers with foodstamps and housing.

posted by geeblock

Honestly I think most businesses that pay 15$ an hour save money in the longrun because they dont have to constantly change and replace staff.  Not only does this waste resources, but it can cost you money because of lost business due to bad customer service by new employees.

This depends.

In certain industries, or within certain niches carved out within given industries, you're absolutely right, which is why many companies in those spaces do pay more than what works out to $15/hr. for even their bottom-tier employees.

Here's the thing: IF paying $15/hr is a sound financial move for a company, then doing so would put more money in the pockets of shareholders, owners, and/or executives.  If we can trust them to be greedy, or at least self-interested (which is what most people are), then they would pay the $15/hr, because it would earn them more money in the long-run.

The thing is, there are industries where there really isn't that much upward mobility within the company, so whether you pay $9/hr, $15/hr, or $30/hr, there will still inevitably be a level of churn.

Couple that with the fact that some of these companies build their marketing strategy around being low-cost as opposed to having high quality product or service and you have a recipe for a potentially viable business that isn't conducive to paying a higher wage to entry-level employees.

Fast food is a prime example.  People don't go to Burger King for a fine culinary experience or for 3-Star Michelin-level service.  They go because they can get 10 nuggets for a buck.  It wouldn't make sense to pay a higher wage there, because the increased quality of the employee wouldn't likely yield and palpable financial benefit.

This is, of course, also aside from the fact that a "living wage" is a moving target, because of inflation.  When we were first married, my wife and I lived comfortably on a household income of about $40K a year.  For the mathematically challenged, that comes out to just over $19/hr.  Sounds fine, right?  Except this was a household income, and there were two people living on it, so it actually worked out to being less than $10/hr per person.  Yet that was still comfortable.  Not lavish or extravagant.  Comfortable.  Just able to pay our bills, live in a nice townhouse in the suburbs, put food on the table, go out on a date every couple weeks, etc.

That same pay wouldn't be nearly as comfortable today.

So, the idea of moving to $15/hr because it's a "living wage" is not only impractical for some industries (and likely already implemented in the industries in which it's practical), but it's also short-sighted, because there will come a time in the not-so-distant future in which $15/hr is no longer a living wage, and we'll be back to this same spot having this same argument again.

This is all aside from the fact that it switches "paying for value" to "paying for need," but that's a different, more abstract argument.

Was this the thread where Boogie was denying there is media bias, because conservatives can go to their extremely bias sources (brietbart, blaze, etc) to get their news?   If not, I am posting this here regardless. 

I mostly get my political news from realclearpolitics, because they normally give both polarizing sides to any given topic.  I highly recommend it for everyone.  At the very least you can see how ridiculous our media is, but maybe you can pick up an argument from the other side you never thought of.

I sometimes watch CNN/MSNBC just for shits and giggles to see how full retard they have gone. Here is the latest example of how boogie is living in his own world if he doesn't think there is a media bias.  Forget the anti semite rhetoric coming from democrat politicians, which is terrible, how about  Omar Llhan going on CNN and defending conspiracy theories about Lindsey Graham being a homosexual and being blackmailed to be outed?  So, now it is cool to out someone as gay as long as it is not a conservative doing it?  Omar was even defending her opinion as evidence.  The two CNN anchors let her get away with this and threw softball questions.  This is the same network half an hour earlier referring to Trump's cancellation of Pelosi's flight as a "BOMBSHELL."   If a republican did this and you don't think this wouldn't be plastered all over the news for weeks, you are completely delusional.  

It's not about being able to put your head in the sand and only following sources that you agree with. The fact the MSM is just as bad (and a lot of cases worse) as the smaller biased sources is a disgrace and why our country is so divided.  Hell, they are the reason why these extremely biased news sources exist to begin with. 

posted by like_that

I sometimes watch CNN/MSNBC just for shits and giggles to see how full retard they have gone. Here is the latest example of how boogie is living in his own world if he doesn't think there is a media bias.  Forget the anti semite rhetoric coming from democrat politicians, which is terrible, how about  Omar Llhan going on CNN and defending conspiracy theories about Lindsey Graham being a homosexual and being blackmailed to be outed?  So, now it is cool to out someone as gay as long as it is not a conservative doing it?  Omar was even defending her opinion as evidence.  The two CNN anchors let her get away with this and threw softball questions.  This is the same network half an hour earlier referring to Trump's cancellation of Pelosi's flight as a "BOMBSHELL."   If a republican did this and you don't think this wouldn't be plastered all over the news for weeks, you are completely delusional.  

Ha funny screenshot on twitter of the douche Chris Calizza on Wednesday saying way to go Pelosi for trying to change the SOTU and calling her tough, then when Trump cancels the trip he calls him immature. It's hilarious. The anti-semitism coming out of the left is something to behold, after the ypretended to care so much about the Pittsburgh shooting.