Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 3:10 pm

bbauska
Much like the drug problem, you move to take away the demand, and you attack the supply.

The socalled war against drugs was a complete failure. It didn't shut down drug organizations, it didn't eliminate drug use, or even limit crime. It did jail thousands of drug users, particularly young black men and create a cycle of poverty.

Today, you have evidence that legalizing marijuana is cutting into drug cartels revenues and activities...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 7e94e8310e

And creating lots of tax revenues that are helping fund schools and hospitals..

What this indicates is that serious regulation at the employer level could lead to genuine control of immigration. Put a couple of meat packing presidents in jail for knowingly hiring illegal aliens and proper vetting of employees by employers will go way up. (Jail, for some reason, being a helluva lot bigger deterrent to millionaires than desperate immigrants looking for a low wage job to feed their family.)
At the same time, you have to be prepared to allow illegals who have had long employment to come forward and, with their employer, commit to a process of legalizing their status. Why? Because these illegals are too important to the economy to suddenly lose them. It would be like The Leftovers.... Entire sectors of the economy would be faced with labor shortages.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jan 2018, 3:47 pm

I disagree with you.

Illegal is illegal. If someone breaks the law, punish them. It does not matter if an employer or employee. You are being biased.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 3:49 pm

rickyp wrote:bbauska
Much like the drug problem, you move to take away the demand, and you attack the supply.

The socalled war against drugs was a complete failure. It didn't shut down drug organizations, it didn't eliminate drug use, or even limit crime. It did jail thousands of drug users, particularly young black men and create a cycle of poverty.


Wow! You destroyed an argument . . .

. . . Bbauska never made! Well done!

It must have taken milliseconds to come up with that straw man!

:metroid:

Today, you have evidence that legalizing marijuana is cutting into drug cartels revenues and activities...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 7e94e8310e

And creating lots of tax revenues that are helping fund schools and hospitals..


It's brilliant! I mean, what's a few lives and billions of brain cells if it helps fund schools and hospitals!

What this indicates is that serious regulation at the employer level could lead to genuine control of immigration.


Uh, wut? Legalizing marijuana means we can control immigration? :uhoh:

Put a couple of meat packing presidents in jail for knowingly hiring illegal aliens and proper vetting of employees by employers will go way up. (Jail, for some reason, being a helluva lot bigger deterrent to millionaires than desperate immigrants looking for a low wage job to feed their family.)


Corporations and Democrats will never let this happen. Corporations like cheap labor. Democrats like the importation of ignorant socialists from all around the world.

At the same time, you have to be prepared to allow illegals who have had long employment to come forward and, with their employer, commit to a process of legalizing their status. Why? Because these illegals are too important to the economy to suddenly lose them. It would be like The Leftovers.... Entire sectors of the economy would be faced with labor shortages.


There is a sane policy in between your liner notes somewhere. Maybe.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 7:37 am

freeman3 wrote:Hey if it works, great. Who am I to let my ego be more important than progress. But my measuring stick will be whether the tax plan helps average people instead of just the rich and corporations. And that will take several years to figure out.


Apple also announced that they would give employees restricted stock worth $2,500. Building facilities in the US will also help "average people".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 7:40 am

Ray Jay wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Hey if it works, great. Who am I to let my ego be more important than progress. But my measuring stick will be whether the tax plan helps average people instead of just the rich and corporations. And that will take several years to figure out.


Apple also announced that they would give employees restricted stock worth $2,500. Building facilities in the US will also help "average people".


I just think it’s a shame that Democrats are not willing to look at good policy just because Trump supports it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 7:43 am

Ricky:
Once a data centre is up and running they typically employ 30 to 50 workers. (And although technical i nature, only a handful require advanced abilities).
Google says they employ about 200 at each of their data centres... But they may also be including local marketing staff ...
Forecasts of permanent employment often fall far short. And they probably are jigged to include the short term jobs created by construction, and the "jobs created" by purchase of equipment.... (Depending on where the equipment is created.)


200 people for this data center, 50 people for that data center, 100 people to build the project who get to go out for dinner with their spouse, or buy their fiancé an engagement ring, or put a down payment for a house so they can get married, or get their child special services that are sorely needed, 100 people to build a pipeline; 5 people who work at the diner that serves them lunch, a guy or two to hook up their cable connection, maybe another thousand to drill some oil wells in Alaska, and the 50 needed to build the facilities, and the guy who can sell enough cars to these workers and can stay employed to buy his daughter braces, and even an orthodontist who you may not feel is average, but she is supporting her family ...

Before you know it you are talking about some real people, maybe even enough to swing an election
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Jan 2018, 9:56 am

You know, you could actually just raise the minimum wage or just give a tax credit to working people or make it easier for them to form a union. I am not going to go gaga over trickle down economics because Apple puts a few jobs into the US. We're only spending 1.5 trillion so I would expect we would get something for it. We could have just mandated that corporations paid the US corporate rate on foreign earnings held overseas and it would have had the same effect. And we don't know all of the things Apple factored into making this decision. This may have been more politically timed than anything else.

Time will tell. One Apple..doesn't make a bushel.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 10:08 am

freeman3 wrote:You know, you could actually just raise the minimum wage or just give a tax credit to working people or make it easier for them to form a union. I am not going to go gaga over trickle down economics because Apple puts a few jobs into the US. We're only spending 1.5 trillion so I would expect we would get something for it. We could have just mandated that corporations paid the US corporate rate on foreign earnings held overseas and it would have had the same effect. And we don't know all of the things Apple factored into making this decision. This may have been more politically timed than anything else.

Time will tell. One Apple..doesn't make a bushel.


Raising the minimum wage doesn't grow the pie. If liberal economic theory is correct, it won't even change the dynamics in the long-term.

Unions have become bloated, inefficient, and corrupt. They are simply corporations which produce nothing.

It's amazing that liberals are so desperate to take good news and slap a "bad news" label on it. It's "Armageddon." Raises and bonuses are "crumbs."

Democrats have become the party of Marie Antoinette.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Jan 2018, 11:05 am

Marie Antionette stands for the rich person who is out of touch with the realities of the lives of poor people. Your use of it here to criticize liberal dogma is 1984ish...

Ultimately, if we want to grow the economic pie we need to improve worker productivity, right? Worker productivity gains result from investment in education, training, and new technologies. How does this 1.5 trillion giveaway to corporations and wealthy investors do that?

Growing the pie is nice...but that extra pie has gone to the rich since 1980.

Now you want the rich to have more helpings of pie while the working-class waits its turn? "Let them have pie"--Marie Antionette (quote slightly altered)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 11:19 am

rayjay
200 people for this data center, 50 people for that data center,

Well, Apple suggested they were going to build 7 data centres. So thats between 350 and 1400 jobs (And knowing Apple probably on the lower end) permanent jobs.
Not a lot of permanent jobs for the investment. There will be of course, a couple of years of construction jobs. But on the whole, this isn't a terrific employment multiplier.

Whats encouraging is that Apple sees a reason to repatriate the money . Which means they want see the investment in Titan construction in the US as more interesting and with greater potential than buying foreign firms ...
And development and construction of autonomous electric cars will be an enormous employment multiplier . Of course, it will have to be since the move to autonomous electric cars will mean the ending of occupations like truck driver...
The question is whether or not Apple would have required the tax benefit or whether they would have had to repatriate the money to fund Titan this year or next anyway.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 11:59 am

bbauska
Illegal is illegal. If someone breaks the law, punish them. It does not matter if an employer or employee. You are being biased.


I'm biased to what works, and benefits society the most. If the law isn't working, change the law.
Prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption in the US, but it did breed organized crime.
Drug laws didn't stop drug consumption but it has supported the growth of organized crime. And it has lead to the expensive and counter productive jailing of a generation of young people caught up in the drug laws.
Immigration laws haven't been working either. Since most illegal immigrants in the US enter legally but over stay , the only efficient way to enforce immigration is at the employer level. (64% are employed). Walls don't stop people who got in legally.
Labour force requirements are such that most of these "undocumented workers" are sorely needed by their employers.(Until and unless you can get 45 year old West Virginia coal miners, and former factory workers to work harvesting crops or slaughtering cattle.) So there needs to be an accommodation that will allow these people to continue to be employed, and their employers to be motivated to bring their long time employed "undocumented" into the light in order to keep their businesses functioning at a high level.
About 80% of undocumented have been in the US more than 5 years. 58% more than 10 years.
Evicting them will, without a doubt, damage families.
It does no good to enforce laws on principle, when the laws harm society.


https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/un ... n/state/US
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 12:14 pm

Fate
Raising the minimum wage doesn't grow the pie
.

Raising the minimum wage increase spending to local businesses. Minimum wage almost always have needs not being met by their income and any increase is spent.
Spending increases and local businesses benefit the most.
Ray made an appeal to the multiplier effect when he talked about the benefits of Apples investment...
The mulitplier effect of an increase in spending by working poor is immediate, and direct. Its always good for the economy.


Fate
Unions have become bloated, inefficient, and corrupt. They are simply corporations which produce nothing.

Only 12 % of all workers in the US are unionized.
One can be critical of how many of them are run, but the historical fact is that without unionization the value of labor would be greatly diminished. Think China.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 1:19 pm

freeman3 wrote:Marie Antionette stands for the rich person who is out of touch with the realities of the lives of poor people. Your use of it here to criticize liberal dogma is 1984ish...


Actually, it's 2016ish. If HRC wasn't so out of touch with the working and poor classes, she wouldn't have lost. When you have multimillionaire libs crying about "crumbs" for the poor when those "crumbs" represent substantial improvements for them, your party is out of touch.

Ultimately, if we want to grow the economic pie we need to improve worker productivity, right? Worker productivity gains result from investment in education, training, and new technologies. How does this 1.5 trillion giveaway to corporations and wealthy investors do that?


Nope, you increase the pie by creating more opportunity--more jobs, more companies, more innovations. You take the boot of government regulation off the neck of business.

We're watching it happen.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 1:22 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Raising the minimum wage doesn't grow the pie
.

Raising the minimum wage increase spending to local businesses. Minimum wage almost always have needs not being met by their income and any increase is spent.
Spending increases and local businesses benefit the most.
Ray made an appeal to the multiplier effect when he talked about the benefits of Apples investment...
The mulitplier effect of an increase in spending by working poor is immediate, and direct. Its always good for the economy.


Nope.

It takes money out of small business, skims off the top (taxes), and returns it to small business. Business costs go up; costs go up; the minimum wage increase has minimal real effect on net spending power.

It is a temporary redistribution of pie.


Fate
Unions have become bloated, inefficient, and corrupt. They are simply corporations which produce nothing.

Only 12 % of all workers in the US are unionized.
One can be critical of how many of them are run, but the historical fact is that without unionization the value of labor would be greatly diminished. Think China.


And, they've run their course, had their day, run their race. They are PACs now--nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Jan 2018, 10:04 am

Fate
It takes money out of small business, skims off the top (taxes), and returns it to small business. Business costs go up; costs go up; the minimum wage increase has minimal real effect on net spending power


Please document some evidence for this assumption.
I think you will be unable to find any documented academic support.

Any business that requires exploitation of the work force to be successful, doesn't deserve to exist.

What occurs, when the lowest level of labor is exploited, is greater and greater income and wealth inequality. Failure to advance the interests of working class people for the last thirty years through laws like minimum wage are the greatest reason for income inequality. Especially because wealth in the US has grown spectacularly albeit for only a very small group of people.
The US has a gini coefficient higher than Iran ... or Russia,

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html