Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hockeydork said:

Devils Advocate:

There is a town with 4 competing steel mills. Most all of the town is employed by one of the steel mills with wages that are competitive and fair due to competition. Steel mill A innovates, finds a way to manufacture steel at 25% cheaper rate. The three other mills can't compete, and steel mill A eventually buys them out. Yay, innovation, steel is now made at a cheaper price. The world is better off, right?

But now everybody works for steel mill A. Steel mill A has much more influence over the labor rate than it did when it had 3 competing mills. Why not cut the wages by 25%? There are no other jobs, so the people have to take it, or starve. 

Bezos made his fortune fair and square, I agree with you, and if you over regulate you take away the incentive for innovation. But the idea that people with large fortunes don't end up with large influence over the economy and labor rates doesn't hold water.  If Bezos and Walmart put every mom and pop shop out of business, how can you say they don't have influence setting the labor rate? Now, Americans CHOSE to buy from them and therefore gave them that power, so in the end its our own damn fault. 

 

 

 

You are making a hypothetical without a basis in reality. Or to be more specific, you're leaving out some pretty big parts.

 

In that scenario, Steel Mill A would end up with renewed competition if they raised the prices too much. For labor, lowering the wages simply pushes employees to work at other jobs (doesn't have to be another steel mill), which would crush Steel Mill A. "There are no other jobs" is a made-up condition. Where is there a single-company town? And if there is, why not move? You can see plenty of industries where exactly that happened.

 

No one said capitalism is without suffering or pain. It's turbulent, but it's simply the best option out there. The gains are overwhelming, and for those who aren't the direct beneficiaries of the spoils of capitalism, the capitalist countries they live in provide *drastically* better living conditions for their poor/impoverished citizens.

 

I prefer to shop at mom and pop stores now that I have the income to do so without hurting my financial goals. I'm not alone. Amazon has been around for less than a single generation, and it will take time for the changes to stabilize. But the arguments made are not new, and our system persists despite the many predictions of dystopian collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suppression and decline of organized labor in the United States is a discussion/thread all its own. 

It is, although the labor organizations themselves in many cases precipitated their own downfalls because they lost sight of their objectives.

And things like the NRLB are a political mess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You are making a hypothetical without a basis in reality. Or to be more specific, you're leaving out some pretty big parts.

 

In that scenario, Steel Mill A would end up with renewed competition if they raised the prices too much. For labor, lowering the wages simply pushes employees to work at other jobs (doesn't have to be another steel mill), which would crush Steel Mill A. "There are no other jobs" is a made-up condition. Where is there a single-company town? And if there is, why not move? You can see plenty of industries where exactly that happened.

 

No one said capitalism is without suffering or pain. It's turbulent, but it's simply the best option out there. The gains are overwhelming, and for those who aren't the direct beneficiaries of the spoils of capitalism, the capitalist countries they live in provide *drastically* better living conditions for their poor/impoverished citizens.

Agreed dude, capitalism is the best we've got, no system is ever going to work perfectly, and not everybody gets to come in first, that's life. But look at you're argument "people would just move and find a new job". How many rust belt cities/coal towns keep voting people into office who "promise" to "bring our manufacturing and coal mining jobs back".  Why don't they just move to CA and work for Tesla, or NY and build wind turbines in Albany, or service solar panels in Nevada? Is it people don't want to leave, home is home?  Not a jab btw, but it seems a lot of times people don't want to move. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is more money in the world than ever before. And also more millionaires and billionaires. Just because there are more doesn’t mean the the poor are staying poor or getting more poor by comparison. In fact they are making more too. And the average US earner is still one of the top of the entire world.

If capitalism is bad, Or the way the US does taxes on inheritance is so bad, then why are we one of the most prosperous countries in the history of the world? So the things that got us here are bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Guardian said:

There is more money in the world than ever before. And also more millionaires and billionaires. Just because there are more doesn’t mean the the poor are staying poor or getting more poor by comparison. In fact they are making more too. And the average US earner is still one of the top of the entire world.

If capitalism is bad, Or the way the US does taxes on inheritance is so bad, then why are we one of the most prosperous countries in the history of the world? So the things that got us here are bad?

Very true. If 5 percent of "the pie" today is twice as much as it was 20 years ago because the pie has doubled in size, than I would agree the system is working. Also, the quality of life of a middle class person today is arguably better than the ultra wealthy of 150 years ago. They didn't have TV, AC, the automobile etc. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the 2004 election, with the discontent brewing before that, a very large swath of the GOP, and, I imagine some centrist Democrats/Independents, have been unhappy with the sudden and ever-increasing growth in the size and scope of the federal government.

The 2010 Tea Party movement was a direct result of that.  The GOP did it's best to ignore/patronize/hijack the movement because it represented a threat to the good deal enjoyed by the Establishment class.  Those "ugly" townhalls upset their merlot glasses.

So what did the GOP do?  It ran Democrat-lites like McCain in 2008 and Mr. Great Hair but can't fight Romney in 2012.  Meanwhile, government growth and overreach marched on.

Come 2016 and the slate was overly full of the same Establishment candidates.  Trump, as a disruptor, beat 16 of those types of candidates.  And the GOP did it's best to tamp him and his voters down.  Obamacare still exists due to McCain, Murkowski, et al.  Despite the very real and clear signals that the peasants were revolting.  They ran during that election on specifically repealing Obamacare and when it came time, they supported it to stick it to Trump.  Some profiles in courage fellas...  With numerous other similar items unpassed or unrepealed because it would've been a win for Trump.

Came 2020 and some unprecedented events and Trump still scored more votes than any other GOP candidate ever.  I will leave off the voting shenanigans for another time.  I

So I'm not a fan of Trump the man, but of the idea he represents - mainly, a very large percentage of Americans are aghast at the size of the federal government, at the unbelievable overreach that is being tolerated and encouraged, and at the intentional fraying of the American societal fabric by that same Establishment group - is something that people want to rally around.

Me?  I want Trump to run again.  To disrupt the same ol' GOP that they'll try to run again and get the serfs back on the turnip fields.  And to absolutely piss people off to see that they aren't always the ones running the show for us peons.  This inconvenient truth was demonstrated once and the amount of caterwailing and pushback by both parties was incredible.   I look forward to it again.

Or burn it all down.

Barring Trump, then DeSantis.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kaputt said:

The entire paragraph I quoted sounds like a college sophomore talking to his friends in the dining hall that just discovered Marx’s theories on exploitation. 

If you can’t address the content of the argument, you’re not really contributing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hockeydork said:

Now, Americans CHOSE to buy from them and therefore gave them that power, so in the end its our own damn fault. 

I agree with everything you said except for this. Americans don’t actually have the excess money to make market choices based on ethics or feelings - they overwhelmingly must go with the cheapest option no matter what if they want a chance at “the American dream.” You can’t blame people that don’t have excess resources for not spending them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I agree with everything you said except for this. Americans don’t actually have the excess money to make market choices based on ethics or feelings - they overwhelmingly must go with the cheapest option no matter what if they want a chance at “the American dream.” You can’t blame people that don’t have excess resources for not spending them.

 

Do they tho? How many middle classers chose to be cheapos? Example, and this is a true story and if I am lying may the fighter gods banish me from having any shot at a pointy. During the 2016 run-up, I had two coworkers, adamant Trump supporters, Bernie and Hillary are socialists, going to destroy the country blah blah. That's FINE. BOTH of them needed tires for their cars, I was like "buy these Coopers they're made in the USA I got them for my car at a fair price". What do they BOTH do? "Give me the cheapest Shengzin whatever tire from Sears". Where were they made? China. Some people do it to themselves. Some people really don't have a choice and are barely scraping by, and yes those people I empathize for and the system needs to do better for them, but a lot of people do it to themselves. I don't care who you are, Walmart greeter, submarine engineer or a baseops F-35 super hero. If you complain we don't make anything here and manufacturing is in the gutter but than actively select to purchase the cheapest foreign stuff when there exists a domestically produced alternative? F*ck you. Rant off. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:


It is, although the labor organizations themselves in many cases precipitated their own downfalls because they lost sight of their objectives.

And things like the NRLB are a political mess.

Agreed. Organizations like the Teamsters have likely contributed to the most anti-labor environment this country has ever seen. Politicians of all stripes are also more anti-labor than ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Since the 2004 election, with the discontent brewing before that, a very large swath of the GOP, and, I imagine some centrist Democrats/Independents, have been unhappy with the sudden and ever-increasing growth in the size and scope of the federal government.

The 2010 Tea Party movement was a direct result of that.  The GOP did it's best to ignore/patronize/hijack the movement because it represented a threat to the good deal enjoyed by the Establishment class.  Those "ugly" townhalls upset their merlot glasses.

So what did the GOP do?  It ran Democrat-lites like McCain in 2008 and Mr. Great Hair but can't fight Romney in 2012.  Meanwhile, government growth and overreach marched on.

Come 2016 and the slate was overly full of the same Establishment candidates.  Trump, as a disruptor, beat 16 of those types of candidates.  And the GOP did it's best to tamp him and his voters down.  Obamacare still exists due to McCain, Murkowski, et al.  Despite the very real and clear signals that the peasants were revolting.  They ran during that election on specifically repealing Obamacare and when it came time, they supported it to stick it to Trump.  Some profiles in courage fellas...  With numerous other similar items unpassed or unrepealed because it would've been a win for Trump.

Came 2020 and some unprecedented events and Trump still scored more votes than any other GOP candidate ever.  I will leave off the voting shenanigans for another time.  I

So I'm not a fan of Trump the man, but of the idea he represents - mainly, a very large percentage of Americans are aghast at the size of the federal government, at the unbelievable overreach that is being tolerated and encouraged, and at the intentional fraying of the American societal fabric by that same Establishment group - is something that people want to rally around.

Me?  I want Trump to run again.  To disrupt the same ol' GOP that they'll try to run again and get the serfs back on the turnip fields.  And to absolutely piss people off to see that they aren't always the ones running the show for us peons.  This inconvenient truth was demonstrated once and the amount of caterwailing and pushback by both parties was incredible.   I look forward to it again.

Or burn it all down.

Barring Trump, then DeSantis.

I agree with most of this, including the very deep rooted issues in the GOP.

However, this country is in desperate need of real leadership. Trump is no leader. As you highlighted, he is a fabulous disruptor, but I don't think he is ultimately what this country needs to actually turn the ship around. There has to be a conservative voice out there that can highlight all the BS that Trump called out, but also find a way to bring the American people together (or at least most of them) and then articulate a vision and future for the country. The tweets, brash personality, etc... can be entertaining, especially the times when he was right. But in the end it is tiring, grading, and at the very least, not professional.

I voted for Trump twice as well, somewhat begrudgingly the second time, although he ultimately was the best candidate that was on the ballot. But, I will be voting in a primary for the first time in my life this next cycle in order to vote against him (if he runs). His personality is not what this country needs or what will actually set this country back on the right path again. I know we can do better than that as a country, and I would hope Republicans can do better than that as a party. Maybe someone like DeSantis, Crenshaw, Noem, or Haley can be the leader this country needs; time will tell.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!Haley! is another !Jeb! creature of the establishment.

Noem is a maybe.

Crenshaw doesn't have the large-scale leadership experience.

DeSantis would be my pick if not for Trump.

 

But I'm past the wanting to bring it together.  I, and millions of others have been repeatedly and for a very long period of time, rejected.  I will reject them right back.  Happy to see it burn if needed.

It's like those racist, misogynistic, privileged Founding Fathers were on to something including the rewatering of the Tree of Liberty at times.  

alz5870xtsq61.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

!Haley! is another !Jeb! creature of the establishment.

Noem is a maybe.

Crenshaw doesn't have the large-scale leadership experience.

DeSantis would be my pick if not for Trump.

 

But I'm past the wanting to bring it together.  I, and millions of others have been repeatedly and for a very long period of time, rejected.  I will reject them right back.  Happy to see it burn if needed.

It's like those racist, misogynistic, privileged Founding Fathers were on to something including the rewatering of the Tree of Liberty at times.  

alz5870xtsq61.jpg

Crenshaw is the only one listed who is able to, and regularly does articulate the underlying principals behind his ideology.

 

His podcast is excellent, and he has a terrific personality/sense of humor. He's a war hero, and he has a "gimmick" that will grab the attention of the reality-TV voters (eye patch). I'd like to see him run with Tim Scott, or someone similarly aggressive in their conservatism while bringing some not-just-another-white-guy diversity into it.

 

It would be pretty badass of we elected a SEAL as president. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hockeydork said:

Agreed dude, capitalism is the best we've got, no system is ever going to work perfectly, and not everybody gets to come in first, that's life. But look at you're argument "people would just move and find a new job". How many rust belt cities/coal towns keep voting people into office who "promise" to "bring our manufacturing and coal mining jobs back".  Why don't they just move to CA and work for Tesla, or NY and build wind turbines in Albany, or service solar panels in Nevada? Is it people don't want to leave, home is home?  Not a jab btw, but it seems a lot of times people don't want to move. 

A lot of people want a lot of things. They get the rewards of their decisions. But their lives are still leagues ahead of the rest of the world, so while they aren't getting the very specific American Dream they desire, they are benefiting none the less.

 

I have many relatives who refuse to move away from CA. They spend a lot of time complaining about how expensive it is, and the limited job opportunities. But when I tell them to leave... No way.

 

Tough shit. They will flounder while millions of others move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It would be pretty badass of we elected a SEAL as president. 

Just imagine how many books they would write if they had a damn president.  And the first half of every state of the union will be about how hard BUDS was.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making a hypothetical without a basis in reality. Or to be more specific, you're leaving out some pretty big parts.
 
In that scenario, Steel Mill A would end up with renewed competition if they raised the prices too much. For labor, lowering the wages simply pushes employees to work at other jobs (doesn't have to be another steel mill), which would crush Steel Mill A. "There are no other jobs" is a made-up condition. Where is there a single-company town? And if there is, why not move? You can see plenty of industries where exactly that happened.


If a company gets big enough, they can kill competition in their infancy. Either buy them out, undercut pricing to drive them out of business, or create barriers to entry into the industry. It's why monopolies are so dangerous. But get big enough, and you can lobby Congress or other oversight agencies to carve out exception for you (look at how successful Disney has been at doing this)

People in general seen to be hesitant to change industries. Throw in either high requirements for entry level jobs (why do so many jobs require a college degree?) or low pay during apprenticeship, and it can make the jump difficult. Especially if you're good at what you already do, and even though you took pay cuts, the pay is still enough scrape by.

Moving is also not without risks. It can be expensive to move (even if you get rid of most of your stuff, a small uhaul is still going to run you several hundred dollars if you're moving any real distance). You lose the support network you've grown up with: family, friends, acquaintances, and may not have any support network where you land to make a new start. There may also be cultural changes that you need to adjust to (rural vs city, regional norms/cultures).

Look at how hard Congress fights against BRAC, especially if a base in their district is on the chopping block. If a base closes (say like in Enid or Altus), there may not be enough jobs in the town to support the former on-base workers, even if they are willing to switch industries. In addition, other businesses get affected by the outflow of people (restaurants, retail, hotels, etc), which could cause then to also cut workers as they adjust to new levels of demand. All that leading to fewer people in the congressional district (decreased influence) and/or a shrunken economy.

Even if a town isn't run by a single company, a large company (or a military base) in a small town has a big impact on the town's economy. There may not be enough jobs for a large number of people to leave the large company without also needing to leave the town to find work. Or there may not be enough jobs if the large company closes or moves elsewhere.

I do think you're argument holds water in a larger city with multiple industries, at least for individual workers.


I prefer to shop at mom and pop stores now that I have the income to do so without hurting my financial goals. I'm not alone. Amazon has been around for less than a single generation, and it will take time for the changes to stabilize. But the arguments made are not new, and our system persists despite the many predictions of dystopian collapse.


Should shopping at mom and pop stores be considered a luxury?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 


If a company gets big enough, they can kill competition in their infancy. Either buy them out, undercut pricing to drive them out of business, or create barriers to entry into the industry. It's why monopolies are so dangerous. But get big enough, and you can lobby Congress or other oversight agencies to carve out exception for you (look at how successful Disney has been at doing this)

People in general seen to be hesitant to change industries. Throw in either high requirements for entry level jobs (why do so many jobs require a college degree?) or low pay during apprenticeship, and it can make the jump difficult. Especially if you're good at what you already do, and even though you took pay cuts, the pay is still enough scrape by.

Moving is also not without risks. It can be expensive to move (even if you get rid of most of your stuff, a small uhaul is still going to run you several hundred dollars if you're moving any real distance). You lose the support network you've grown up with: family, friends, acquaintances, and may not have any support network where you land to make a new start. There may also be cultural changes that you need to adjust to (rural vs city, regional norms/cultures).

Look at how hard Congress fights against BRAC, especially if a base in their district is on the chopping block. If a base closes (say like in Enid or Altus), there may not be enough jobs in the town to support the former on-base workers, even if they are willing to switch industries. In addition, other businesses get affected by the outflow of people (restaurants, retail, hotels, etc), which could cause then to also cut workers as they adjust to new levels of demand. All that leading to fewer people in the congressional district (decreased influence) and/or a shrunken economy.

Even if a town isn't run by a single company, a large company (or a military base) in a small town has a big impact on the town's economy. There may not be enough jobs for a large number of people to leave the large company without also needing to leave the town to find work. Or there may not be enough jobs if the large company closes or moves elsewhere.

I do think you're argument holds water in a larger city with multiple industries, at least for individual workers.



Should shopping at mom and pop stores be considered a luxury?

 

That's all well and good, but I don't see any of it as a flaw. It's a necessary ingredient to change, and change is the basis for our continued growth and development. A lot of countries in Europe spend huge sums "protecting" people from the challenges you list, and they barely make a difference, other than to saddle the country with a ton of additional debt. There's a whole lot of people moving to non-coastal cities like Nashville and DFW, all which have their small-town suburbs surrounding them. You can read the currents and profit or fight them and drown, but we aren't an agrarian society so having 5 generations live in the same town isn't a viable option anymore.

 

The monopoly stuff is all true, and it's why we have laws for it. But as you noted, the bigger problem is corporatism. As an example, Amazon gets tax cuts for opening new warehouses. Insanity. We need a constitutional ban on selective taxation that extends all the way to the local level. The greatest threat to a capitalist system is unfairness (of opportunity, not outcome).

 

And no, it shouldn't be a luxury, and it's not. Buying the literal maximum amount of "stuff" with a given income is not a human right. Americans are some of the richest people in the world, and even the lower two quintiles can make choices. In most cases it's not a matter of "can they" but a matter of "do they care?" Just like littering, air pollution, organic produce, bike lanes, and fair-trade coffee, buying from mom and pop stores is a concern of the wealthy.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, kaputt said:

There has to be a conservative voice out there that can highlight all the BS that Trump called out, but also find a way to bring the American people together (or at least most of them) and then articulate a vision and future for the country. The tweets, brash personality, etc... can be entertaining, especially the times when he was right. But in the end it is tiring, grading, and at the very least, not professional.

This is exactly what I would like to see.  A conservative that can highlight all the BS going on, bring us together and articulate a vision for the future but do it in a professional, mature and presidential manner.  

The unfortunate reality is, the only type person that can highlight the BS, fight back and fight hard against the system, deep state, media, big tech, etc is a disruptor.  That type of person would have all the character flaws that Trump has. It’s how a billionaire real estate tycoon from NYC who is a ego maniac got elected.  He was the only one willing to walk into the room slinging elbows and throwing punches.  It was hard to watch at times but again, that’s the only personality type that has the balls to do it.  Anyone and everyone else just gets run over.  

Nobody had ever looked at Hillary Clinton and said “you’d be in jail” on national tv.  She’d never been talked to like that in her entire life.  Some squeaky clean conservative damn sure would never have done it.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Trump had only listened to the IP and learned to STFU he would still be POTUS. He is his own worst enemy, not for standing up to the political elite and calling them out, but for the indiscriminate shit flinging at any and everyone (even when clueless about his target). He is a classical liberal, but I'd take a liberal any day over the lunacy of the new left.

 
 

.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 4:32 PM, hockeydork said:

Do they tho? How many middle classers chose to be cheapos? Example, and this is a true story and if I am lying may the fighter gods banish me from having any shot at a pointy. During the 2016 run-up, I had two coworkers, adamant Trump supporters, Bernie and Hillary are socialists, going to destroy the country blah blah. That's FINE. BOTH of them needed tires for their cars, I was like "buy these Coopers they're made in the USA I got them for my car at a fair price". What do they BOTH do? "Give me the cheapest Shengzin whatever tire from Sears". Where were they made? China. Some people do it to themselves. Some people really don't have a choice and are barely scraping by, and yes those people I empathize for and the system needs to do better for them, but a lot of people do it to themselves. I don't care who you are, Walmart greeter, submarine engineer or a baseops F-35 super hero. If you complain we don't make anything here and manufacturing is in the gutter but than actively select to purchase the cheapest foreign stuff when there exists a domestically produced alternative? F*ck you. Rant off. 

This illustrates my point even more. If middle class people won’t do it, why would people who actually have no money?

In my experience, unless you’re getting significantly better quality for the higher cost, people dgaf where things are produced. They’ll bitch and moan about China, but it is definitely not in the vast majority of American’s minds or capabilities to actually give a damn.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 9:10 PM, Lord Ratner said:

I have many relatives who refuse to move away from CA. They spend a lot of time complaining about how expensive it is, and the limited job opportunities. But when I tell them to leave... No way.

The funny thing is, there actually are tons of job opportunities in CA if you have skills and expertise that the upper echelon of the market desires. It's the type of place you go when you want to maximize your career potential (along with NYC, LA, SF, DC, etc.) The typical upper class trust fund kid or Ivy kid graduating with elite prospects is going to move to place on the coast, not Nashville or Dallas...unless they have a personally compelling reason to be elsewhere.

But yes I also agree that if you can't handle it out here, then you probably need to pack up and move on, because it'll break you if you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...