Bernie Proposes Job Guarantee

[Nnicolette]

On 4/26/2018 at 10:06 PM, acidhead said:

The problem with old Bernie's proposal is the word "free".

Free jobs,, free health care, free college, free everything.

Yet everybody who pays tax pays......

...except those who don't want to work but want everything freeeee!!!

It's simply economics.

A pipe dream.

 

Free jobs are bad because everyone who doesn't want to work wants something for free? Think. About. What. You. Are. Saying. You are mad because you think taxpayers are affected by people getting jobs? They become taxpayers. Duh.

[+OverSword]

On 4/26/2018 at 7:55 PM, Aquila King said:

I wonder how many supposedly 'pro-jobs' conservatives are gonna automatically oppose this...

Me.  I don't support the government using my tax dollars to pay people for busy work government jobs.  The government (state, federal, and local) already employs over 21 million people and dumb **** Sanders wants to employ 96 million (current estimate of unemployed in the USA) more?  Stupid plan.  Trump has already gone in the direction needed to create more jobs and that is by lowering taxes making it easier for businesses to grow and to employ greater numbers of people. 

[Farmer77]

Just now, OverSword said:

Trump has already gone in the direction needed to create more jobs and that is by lowering taxes making it easier for businesses to grow and to employ greater numbers of people. 

I don't understand why people think human nature will automatically disappear with a tax cut. 

Marco Rubio: Corporations aren't investing tax cuts

 

[+OverSword]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I don't understand why people think human nature will automatically disappear with a tax cut. 

Marco Rubio: Corporations aren't investing tax cuts

 

That's BS.  Corporations do nothing but invest with their money.  The corporation I work for has now moved into acquisition mode, growing the company.  Do you honestly believe that big business sits on their money and doesn't do everything they can to make the business worth more?

So what part of human nature are you talking about?

Edited May 3, 2018 by OverSword

[Farmer77]

Just now, OverSword said:

.  Do you honestly believe that big business sits on their money and doesn't do everything they can to make the business worth more?

Not at all, I do however honestly believe that doing everything they can to make the business worth more often has absolutely zero relationship with employing people or improving pay or benefits for the people they do employ. 

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

  The corporation I work for has now moved into acquisition mode, growing the company. 

 Again growing the company doesn't equate growing the employee's bank accounts. 

Have you seen an increase in pay prior to them investing that tax cut in the company's bottom line ? Will the new positions which the company gains be worth a damn or will they be min wage or part time jobs with no benefits? 

 

[+OverSword]

34 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 Again growing the company doesn't equate growing the employee's bank accounts. 

Have you seen an increase in pay prior to them investing that tax cut in the company's bottom line ?

Yes I did, but I would have gotten that regardless IMO. 

Bottom line growing the company creates jobs and employs more people.  They don't sit on a big pile of money and it's not only employees who benefit financially from companies, a certain percentage of profits are paid out to investors.

Seriously, people need to educate themselves about economics.  This B(ernie) S(anders) scheme is bad economics and is worse than a dead end it's economic suicide.  If jobs are worth creating the free market creates them.  If the free market doesn't create them it's because they are not profitable and therefor the government creating them  will be a drain on the taxpayers. 

[Farmer77]

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Bottom line growing the company creates jobs and employs more people.  

I think we need to stop celebrating "employing people" and start looking at that as the minimum entry requirement to function as a business in our society. 

17 minutes ago, OverSword said:

They don't sit on a big pile of money and it's not only employees who benefit financially from companies, a certain percentage of profits are paid out to investors.

A large percentage is paid out to stock holders, especially with this tax cut.

IMO we should be exploring some kind of regulation regarding stockholder/executive pay as it relates to employee pay. Maybe look at something like setting a national limit of X percentage above median employee wage for executives. 

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Seriously, people need to educate themselves about economics.  This B(ernie) S(anders) scheme is bad economics and is worse than a dead end it's economic suicide.  If jobs are worth creating the free market creates them.  If the free market doesn't create them it's because they are not profitable and therefor the government creating them  will be a drain on the taxpayers. 

IDK about Bernie's plan and I'm definitely not an economist but I feel like we've been slowly committing national suicide for decades due to our economic policies.  We have an unhealthy, undereducated, stressed out, miserable society with huge swaths of our nation feeling disenfranchised from Bubba in WV to Lequisha in CA and every where in between.  The middle class is shrinking just about everywhere in America  It doesn't have to be this way, this paradigm can change.

 

[+OverSword]

40 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I think we need to stop celebrating "employing people" and start looking at that as the minimum entry requirement to function as a business in our society.

Really?  Start a business and see how many people you can employ.  Probably just you at first. 

40 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

A large percentage is paid out to stock holders, especially with this tax cut.

IMO we should be exploring some kind of regulation regarding stockholder/executive pay as it relates to employee pay. Maybe look at something like setting a national limit of X percentage above median employee wage for executives.

So the innovative, driven people who put 7 day weeks and 15 hour days should be limited in how much they make based on what the people under them make, who probably work 5 days and 8 hours?  The head of my company I'm sure makes substantially more than I do.  He's also got a jam packed calendar, is required to travel around the country and sit in seriously tedious meetings and take classes, run his own book of business, is constantly being evaluated and is always on the chopping block if things don't run smooth, and I get emails from him every morning that were sent out after midnight and he's in the office before me.  The executive class that is driven enough and intelligent enough to work this hard are paid what they're worth, and it's not up to you, me or the government to determine what that number is.

40 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK about Bernie's plan and I'm definitely not an economist but I feel like we've been slowly committing national suicide for decades due to our economic policies.  We have an unhealthy, undereducated, stressed out, miserable society with huge swaths of our nation feeling disenfranchised from Bubba in WV to Lequisha in CA and every where in between.  The middle class is shrinking just about everywhere in America  It doesn't have to be this way, this paradigm can change.

and the exact opposite way of making this change is through government providing jobs paid for by the tax payer, lowering everyone's post tax income.  The other thing that must stop is cronyism, which is government favoritism through legislation for certain companies which is actually a huge problem that will remain so until we change the rules for campaign funding.

Edited May 3, 2018 by OverSword

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Wow, that's stupid.  So the innovative, driven people who put 7 day weeks and 15 hour days should be limited in how much they make based on what the people under them make, who probably work 5 days and 8 hours?   

Well they're limited by how much the people under  them produce right? Without people doing the work the executive can put in all the 15 hour work days he wants and it wont make him a dime. I hated unions when I was younger but now I definitely understand why the GOP has worked so hard over the decades to eliminate them. 

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The head of my company I'm sure makes substantially more than I do.  He's also got a jam packed calendar, is required to travel around the country and sit in seriously tedious meetings and take classes, run his own book of business, are constantly being evaluated and are always on the chopping block if things don't run smooth, and I get emails from him every morning that were sent out after midnight and he's in the office before me.

Good on him, same for the head of my company. Does that really equate to earning 350x what you earn though? The pay gap between CEOs and workers is much worse than you realize

From an economic standpoint wouldn't those millions of dollars better serve the economy if it were disbursed across a region rather than consolidated by one person? 

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The other thing that must stop is cronyism, which is government favoritism through legislation for certain companies which is actually a huge problem that will remain so until we change the rules for campaign funding.

Cronyism and lobbyists are the worst things to ever happen to this nation for sure. 

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Good on him, same for the head of my company. Does that really equate to earning 350x what you earn though? The pay gap between CEOs and workers is much worse than you realize

 

Please

[Farmer77]

Just now, OverSword said:

Please

Care to summarize?  I'm hearing a whole bunch of cheerleading for the status quo but not much value. 

 

 

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Care to summarize?  I'm hearing a whole bunch of cheerleading for the status quo but not much value.

No, if you care to learn, listen, if not, sa la vie

[Farmer77]

Just now, OverSword said:

No, if you care to learn, listen, if not, sa la vie

I listened. He stated his positions without any facts or data. In a conversation about economics how am I supposed to learn from someone's opinions?  

I already understand the argument from a philosophical standpoint. I think we're at a stage in our nation's history when it's time to put the philosophy up against the facts of our main street economy for the last 40 years or so and see if we cant do better for the American people. 

 

 

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I listened. He stated his positions without any facts or data. In a conversation about economics how am I supposed to learn from someone's opinions?  

I already understand the argument from a philosophical standpoint. I think we're at a stage in our nation's history when it's time to put the philosophy up against the facts of our main street economy for the last 40 years or so and see if we cant do better for the American people.

It's not opinion, he explained some of the natural laws of economics.  How is "Steve Jobs got paid the most because he was worth the most to the company" opinion? 

The best thing for the American people is not to tax their brains out in order to pay people too much for jobs that shouldn't even exist.  If the jobs should exist the free market would have created them. 

[Farmer77]

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It's not opinion, he explained some of the natural laws of economics.  How is "Steve Jobs got paid the most because he was worth the most to the company" opinion? 

IDK I guess that was such a common sense statement I ignored it. Oh...... was he building a strawman there? No one is saying the CEO shouldn't make more, hell even a huge amount more, than front line employees. Just that making 350x what the line employees make might not be in the best interest of our nation. 

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The best thing for the American people is not to tax their brains out in order to pay people too much for jobs that shouldn't even exist.  If the jobs should exist the free market would have created them. 

I think I feel the same about this Bernie proposal that I did about Obamacare.  At least  someone is trying 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Farmer77

[+OverSword]

20 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK I guess that was such a common sense statement I ignored it. Oh...... was he building a strawman there? No one is saying the CEO shouldn't make more, hell even a huge amount more, than front line employees. Just that making 350x what the line employees make might not be in the best interest of our nation.

How so?  What difference does it make to your life if the CEO of your company makes a ridiculous 350x what you make?  Do you think you make less because he makes more?  Why don't you go apply where you can get paid more then?

 

22 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I think I feel the same about this Bernie proposal that I did about Obamacare.  At least  someone is trying 

Trying what?  To get idiots to vote for him because they think he would be able to pass legislation as ridiculous as creating 90 million, $15.00 and hour, full benefit jobs that are not necessary? 

[+OverSword]

On 4/28/2018 at 6:58 AM, ChaosRose said:

I know every conservative will balk at this, but I think at least community college should be free. 

If it was it would soon be as ineffective as every public school and you would have a bunch of ineffective unskilled people that went to 14th grade instead of 12th. 

[+OverSword]

On 4/28/2018 at 7:06 AM, DieChecker said:

 They are trying out the $15 minimum wage in places around the US and I'm waiting to see if any of them are very successful. Usually takes a couple years before corporate interests will move in or out. And another couple years to see if small business are going under or thriving.

We do it here.  The effect is that the price food and rent have skyrocketed and $15 feels like $8.  Terrible idea.

[+OverSword]

On 4/28/2018 at 3:15 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

The way I see it, it’s less nationalising the jobs market, and more creating a Governement Labour Corps that works out of various locales and does the jobs no one else wants but which need to be done.

Isn't that why we have illegal aliens? 

[F3SS]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Well they're limited by how much the people under  them produce right? Without people doing the work the executive can put in all the 15 hour work days he wants and it wont make him a dime. I hated unions when I was younger but now I definitely understand why the GOP has worked so hard over the decades to eliminate them. 

Good on him, same for the head of my company. Does that really equate to earning 350x what you earn though? The pay gap between CEOs and workers is much worse than you realize

From an economic standpoint wouldn't those millions of dollars better serve the economy if it were disbursed across a region rather than consolidated by one person? 

Who cares what he makes? I think you’re just jealous. Ceo’s make and manage decisions affecting hundreds or thousands of employees and millions and millions of dollars. Everybody has their stresses in life but most of our decisions surround ourselves and our families. Whatever though, complaining and jealousy never get anybody ahead in life.

59 minutes ago, OverSword said:

We do it here.  The effect is that the price food and rent have skyrocketed and $15 feels like $8.  Terrible idea.

Wow! Who didn’t see that coming?

[+OverSword]

44 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Wow! Who didn’t see that coming?

Socialism and children.

[+DieChecker]

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

We do it here.  The effect is that the price food and rent have skyrocketed and $15 feels like $8.  Terrible idea.

I took a look and here is what I found at top of Google results....

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/seattle-is-getting-an-object-lesson-in-weaponized-data/

Quote

The study found that while wages for low-earners rose by 3 percent since the law went into effect, hours for those workers dropped by 9 percent. The average worker making less than $19 an hour in Seattle has seen a total loss of $125 a month since the law went into effect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d93fbc872736

Quote

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.

The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/06/27/these-people-are-shameless-seattles-15-minimum-wage-is-worse-than-you-thought/#3c85be0d31ba

 

Looks like Seattle is about 125% cost of housing then here in Portland

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/portland

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/seattle

[Farmer77]

15 hours ago, F3SS said:

Who cares what he makes? I think you’re just jealous.

Sure that's the easy way to ignore larger problems.

15 hours ago, F3SS said:

Ceo’s make and manage decisions affecting hundreds or thousands of employees and millions and millions of dollars

So do I. Again I'm not saying they shouldn't make a ton of money. I am saying however that CEO's making 350x what the average worker makes isn't a good economic model. Its not normal, we are the only nation that functions like that. Remove the emotion and look at it as an economic issue. From a hard data standpoint do you really believe that our nation is better off having those funds centralized in the bank accounts of a few rather than being dispersed and spent throughout the economy? Probably not but emotion has told you that anyone who questions the status quo is jealous and lazy 

 

 

[F3SS]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure that's the easy way to ignore larger problems.

So do I. Again I'm not saying they shouldn't make a ton of money. I am saying however that CEO's making 350x what the average worker makes isn't a good economic model. Its not normal, we are the only nation that functions like that. Remove the emotion and look at it as an economic issue. From a hard data standpoint do you really believe that our nation is better off having those funds centralized in the bank accounts of a few rather than being dispersed and spent throughout the economy? Probably not but emotion has told you that anyone who questions the status quo is jealous and lazy 

 

 

So is this your new tactic? Take everything well known to be left wing personality traits and just say they’re now right wing traits? You’re not the only one. I’ve been hearing progressives adopt that tactic since the election. It doesn’t work but I’ve been seeing you doing it and just wanted to point it out. 

The emotional one says things aren’t fair, wants to dictate how much one can make and what a business should be doing with its money. The one speaking without emotion takes the position that what the ceo makes and what a business does with its money is none of my business. I could see maybe taking issue with it if it was a company I worked for depending on unknown variables but I highly doubt it and if that were the case I’d have to quit if it upset me so much. Really though, I don’t care who makes what. The only thing I have to be upset about, though I’m really not, is that I haven’t figured out how to climb that ladder myself. How emotional of me.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, F3SS said:

So is this your new tactic? Take everything well known to be left wing personality traits and just say they’re now right wing traits? You’re not the only one. I’ve been hearing progressives adopt that tactic since the election. It doesn’t work but I’ve been seeing you doing it and just wanted to point it out. 

I'm not the only one because its not a tactic its reality. I posted a whole list of things to Ravenhawk in another thread. From whataboutism to moral relativity to hero worship. The GOP of today really really resembles the Clinton Democrats of the 1990's. 

10 minutes ago, F3SS said:

The emotional one says things aren’t fair, wants to dictate how much one can make and what a business should be doing with its money. The one speaking without emotion takes the position that what the ceo makes and what a business does with its money is none of my business.

. 

Really? The one ignoring all other factors beyond how he feels about the issue is speaking without emotion? Nice try amigo.

Or maybe its that you don't even realize you're acting off of emotion ? 

Now had you even tried to discuss the economics involved or whether other models were successful or not you would be correct. You didn't even try and examine the issue though. Its just "youre jealous" and while you didn't say it your demeanor displays the 6 most dangerous words in todays society "that's the way its always been" 

 

12 minutes ago, F3SS said:

. I could see maybe taking issue with it if it was a company I worked for depending on unknown variables but I highly doubt it and if that were the case I’d have to quit if it upset me so much. Really though, I don’t care who makes what. The only thing I have to be upset about, though I’m really not, is that I haven’t figured out how to climb that ladder myself. How emotional of me.

You do care who makes what though.

You want to pay lower taxes right? You don't like paying for welfare or food stamps right? You don't want to pay for Medicaid for others to get healthcare right?  

So then lets examine the status quo and try and find a better way.