Decision 2016

[Dysole]

What I'm Looking For

I'm still trying to figure out what'll need to happen to reroute the system to make more than two parties viable. I know what needs to go (first past the post winner take all method of victory) but I'm uncertain how to remove that or to make something else more viable. To this extent, I see voting third party as akin to taking ibuprofen for cancer. Shrug.

~Dysole, big picture gal

 

[Tornado]

No, at the worst, your indifference and that of others like you - or, perhaps, your cynicism and that of others like you - will be calamitous for our nation.

This. This exactly.

 

[Nukatha]

Re: What I'm Looking For

I'm still trying to figure out what'll need to happen to reroute the system to make more than two parties viable. I know what needs to go (first past the post winner take all method of victory) but I'm uncertain how to remove that or to make something else more viable. To this extent, I see voting third party as akin to taking ibuprofen for cancer. Shrug.

~Dysole, big picture gal

Pretty sure we'd need a Constitutional Amendment to change that, which, thankfully, Congress doesn't ever need to vote on, the States can do all that on their own.
Oh, and if I have cancer and I'm offered acupuncture, homeopathy, and ibuprofen, I'll take the ibuprofen every time.

 

[Dysole]

Constitution Score

If I remember right, Congress still has to draft and vote on it. It has to be approved by most of the state legislatures though as well.

As for the analogy, I don't see Democrats and Republicans (the leadership) in that way. I see them as two mediocre health plans with pros and cons that are much more concerned with making a buck off of me than whether or not I recover but they still want my recovery because it's good PR.

~Dysole, who might be a bit cyncial on that front, but she finds neither party to be inherently broken; this whole election does feel like it's bringing out the dysfunctions in both parties though.

 

[Nukatha]

If I remember right, Congress still has to draft and vote on it. It has to be approved by most of the state legislatures though as well.

Not true.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Two thirds of the state legislatures (34) can propose an amendment, which then would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38 ), which bypasses Congress.

 

[wriggz]

Re: Constitution Score

If I remember right, Congress still has to draft and vote on it. It has to be approved by most of the state legislatures though as well.

As for the analogy, I don't see Democrats and Republicans (the leadership) in that way. I see them as two mediocre health plans with pros and cons that are much more concerned with making a buck off of me than whether or not I recover but they still want my recovery because it's good PR.QUOTE]

And there is the Rub.

Business is about making money. No matter which way you cut it the point of a business is to get more money out than is put in for the profits of the Owner (shareholders).

Government SHOULD be different. The purpose of good government is the Protection and promotion of welfare of it's citizens (or happiness of it citizens). This includes facilitating the creation of Jobs, providing education, Ensuring basic necessities are available (like clean water and electricity), Protection from fire, crime, war, disease and prejudice.

How the government does these things is up for debate, but cost of letting "Business sort it out" has been paid repeatedly (see financial crashes, environmental destruction, and the wage gap for examples). When a politician goes into politics to make money something is wrong, in the same way you would hope that a doctor want to save lives first and foremost or a police officer wants to protect people, instead of just collecting a paycheck.

In a recent visit to a Native Reservation, Canada's current Prime Minster Justine Trudeau Promised to make sure clean water is available. I paraphrase: "It needs to be done, People will say it costs too much, It does not matter what it costs, it is the right thing to do". They have begun moving on the project, which is just the type of activity that government was created to do.


I don't know how government bodies can deal with anything, when people are starving. Shouldn't that end any discussion.


"I would like to propose that we re-negotiate the way taxes are..."
"People are starving, maybe we should focus on that first, eh?"

 

[Rich10]

Re: Constitution Score

Government SHOULD be different. The purpose of good government is the Protection and promotion of welfare of it's citizens (or happiness of it citizens). This includes facilitating the creation of Jobs, providing education, Ensuring basic necessities are available (like clean water and electricity), Protection from fire, crime, war, disease and prejudice.

How the government does these things is up for debate, but cost of letting "Business sort it out" has been paid repeatedly (see financial crashes, environmental destruction, and the wage gap for examples). When a politician goes into politics to make money something is wrong, in the same way you would hope that a doctor want to save lives first and foremost or a police officer wants to protect people, instead of just collecting a paycheck.

In a recent visit to a Native Reservation, Canada's current Prime Minster Justine Trudeau Promised to make sure clean water is available. I paraphrase: "It needs to be done, People will say it costs too much, It does not matter what it costs, it is the right thing to do". They have begun moving on the project, which is just the type of activity that government was created to do.

I agree that government should be involved in "facilitating the creation of Jobs, providing education, Ensuring basic necessities are available (like clean water and electricity), Protection from fire, crime, war, disease and prejudice." Yes, we should have clean water.


I'm not sure how to prevent financial crashes. I wouldn't want to be an oil field worker in Canada since the price of oil crashed. Outside of providing a safety net, what is the government supposed to do about the drop in the price of oil? Yes, you need regulations on businesses to prevent pollution and other similar negative events. But, if the regulations begin choking companies, you begin to hurt ""facilitating the creation of Jobs".

I don't know how government bodies can deal with anything, when people are starving. Shouldn't that end any discussion.


"I would like to propose that we re-negotiate the way taxes are..."
"People are starving, maybe we should focus on that first, eh?"

Are people starving in Canada? I would have thought that Canada's social safety net would make this unlikely.

 

[wriggz]

Starving is a bit hyperbolic but That poverty line is fairly crappy. Sometimes it seems we focus on the details aND forget the goal.

You are correct about regulatons to a point. Canada still largely regulates the bank and insurance industry so we didn't get hit so hard in 2008.

 

[Rich10]

Starving is a bit hyperbolic but That poverty line is fairly crappy. Sometimes it seems we focus on the details aND forget the goal.

You are correct about regulatons to a point. Canada still largely regulates the bank and insurance industry so we didn't get hit so hard in 2008.

The poverty line is crappy in the US as well. The hope is that people will not be satisfied with surviving at the poverty line and will attempt to raise themselves above it.

The Great Recession of 2008 was a very complex event and people on the right and left blame the other side. They both seem to have valid points.

 

[wriggz]

The poverty line is crappy in the US as well. The hope is that people will not be satisfied with surviving at the poverty line and will attempt to raise themselves above it.

My Son was born to a Insurance Professional and a Registered Nurse with university education. His parents are on track to own their own home, and will be able to afford him a full stomach, a computer, and a childhood where Skinned knees and cooties will hopefully be his biggest worries. He will also get lots of time with his parents to play and learn as neither work more than 35 hours a week. He will grow up with kids in generally the same economic situation. His local elementary school and high schools are clean and reasonability well staffed. Both his parents are qualified to help him with his homework. There are 4 Universities he can reach on public transit and multiple collages which his parents have set up a savings plan for and are not beyond his means due to scholarships bursaries and a reasonable student loan service. If either his parents lost their jobs it is unlikely they would be out of work for more than a month or two, and have savings enough to get them through rough patches.


Both my wife and myself were raised by single Mothers in "working" towns. My mother worked multiple jobs to make sure I was never hunger but I was lucky enough to have brains enough to avoid the seeder side of life (some of my friends were not so lucky). My wife is more impressive as her mother was on disability and there was no child support. She fought her way to where she is now, and again many of those she grew up didn't.


Few people "decide" that they are okay living at the poverty line. Both my wife and I lucked out to have brains enough (and maybe not be cool enough to get sucked in with the Cool bad kids) to get through those rough years. When you get to the other side and see the Morons that are successful because their lives were easy, you realize there are many at the bottom because that is where they were born.


My son has almost every advantage you would want. If he fails it is because of either REALLY, REALLY bad luck or because he is a Dumbass. The same cannot be said for most people growing up in poverty, who need to be lucky to succeed.

 

[Tornado]

I have to admit, I always thought it to be idyllic in Canada but I imagine your cities have the same amount of corruption as any other major city.

Grats on your accomplishments wriggz. I can think of no better gift than a good childhood and the potential that lies beyond.

 

[Rich10]

Few people "decide" that they are okay living at the poverty line. Both my wife and I lucked out to have brains enough (and maybe not be cool enough to get sucked in with the Cool bad kids) to get through those rough years. When you get to the other side and see the Morons that are successful because their lives were easy, you realize there are many at the bottom because that is where they were born.

I'm not sure what leads to generations of people who live in poverty. My parents were immigrants into the US and had no money or education. As my father put it, he had "a willingness to work harder than anyone else" wherever he worked. He worked 2 jobs while my mother also worked for many years. He made sure that my brother and I went to college in a field in which we could earn a living. A friend of mine is the son of immigrants and he also remembers his father having multiple jobs. In the 1960's to 1970's, a willingness to work hard, with a push for your children's education seemed to be a path out of poverty. The market for blue collar labor seems much tighter today than it did years ago. I'm not sure what is needed today. I know of families that skate by with part time jobs and government assistance. They have enough to eat, but not enough to get ahead of living check to check.

 

[Dysole]

One Thing

The U.S. is moving more and more to having most of its jobs be service based and more and more automation. Neither party is really addressing those concerns instead focusing on the manufacturing jobs that we will never regain to the level where we used to be.

Several things contribute to generational poverty not the least of which is that communities of minorities have several intrinsic disadvantages against them (location, lack of resources, etc.). Other things like the growing costs of education, increased access to credit, decisions by producers as a whole, decisions by investors as a whole, government gridlock, etc. all contribute without an individual necessarily being able to control them.

This is all kind of half remembered from stuff I've read over a period of time so some of it may be less accurate than I remember but the main gist is that there are things that contribute to an individual's poverty that that person has no control over (although I would say it's rare that they have zero control over everything).

~Dysole, still juggling potential solutions

 

[vegietarian18]

Losing jobs to manufacturing will definitely be a problem in the far future. I'm not convinced it's having a devastating effect at the moment, and that the jobs haven't just moved to cheaper labor forces.

The idea has been discussed for a long time. So long in fact, that it's known as the Luddite Fallacy, after workers in the 19th century England who feared technological innovations would hurt their future employment prospects. I think calling it a fallacy is pretty flawed, but it seems to always be always on the horizon rather than a current problem. I think if we ever reach a point where global unemployment is an issue, politicians can address it, but at the moment, I think it is only a small piece of the problem for generational poverty.

 

[Dysole]

Locally Grown

Losing jobs to manufacturing will definitely be a problem in the far future. I'm not convinced it's having a devastating effect at the moment, and that the jobs haven't just moved to cheaper labor forces.

The idea has been discussed for a long time. So long in fact, that it's known as the Luddite Fallacy, after workers in the 19th century England who feared technological innovations would hurt their future employment prospects. I think calling it a fallacy is pretty flawed, but it seems to always be always on the horizon rather than a current problem. I think if we ever reach a point where global unemployment is an issue, politicians can address it, but at the moment, I think it is only a small piece of the problem for generational poverty.

I was only referencing US jobs which have decreased and barring a minor miracle will not return. We can certainly adjust our economy to technological improvements; we just haven't as well as we could.

~Dysole, adding some clarifiers to her original statement

 

[wriggz]

I really don't think it is the lack of jobs. Instead it is the lack of consumers that is stalling the economy. historically economy's have been fairly local. Local farmer, local barber, local kobler. Sure there was in ports and exports but much of the local wealth stayed local.

This has radically changed as more of our consumables are non physical. All the profits of candy crush and pokemon go are consolidated. Small economies are bled dry as business centers boom. Even more concerning us the massing of huge fortunes. GI've a billionaire a million dollar tax hike and he might spend it on investing in the local economy and even then expects to take more money out when he is paid back with profits. Give a ten thousand low income earners 100 dollars and that is a million dollars that is being pumped directly back into local economy's (as far as retail is local) illegal activities notwithstanding.

More jobs generally means more consumers and vise versa. however you need more consumers to drive more jobs. Taking money out of the economy in the form of multi billionaire stops that process.

 

[Tornado]

I have had a theory that the economy was good during the Clinton era simply because people were spending money.
Those were good times, the last time we really were not at war and folks were buying and not saving. The more people bought the more jobs it created.
Again a theory, I have absolutely no statistics to back it up.

 

[Nukatha]

That is incredibly important, Tornado. Economies aren't 'good' when everyone saves money, they're good when everyone is spending. When I buy something, I hand a wad of cash over, and the recipient can immediately use that for goods and services for himself.

It's like that $100 bill story. A hotel own has a nice room available for $100 per night. A guy from out of town shows up and gives the Hotel owner $100 for a room, at which point he walks upstairs to the room. The manager runs over the grocer to pay for last week's food purchase for the Hotel's restaurant. The Grocer immediately runs to the local farmer and pays him for last week's deli meats. The Farmer owed one of his hired hands $100 for some overtime work, so pays him. This hired hand's parents are in from out-of-town and staying at the hotel tonight, so he runs to the Hotel to pay the manager so their room will be ready when they arrive. At this time the man from out-of-town walks back downstairs, says he doesn't like the room, and asks for his money back, which the manager gives him immediately.

A economy is great when people can buy things to improve their life. More purchases from any given location should lead to higher wages for employees, or more employees, which they can then use for their own self-improvement. Higher wages mean more tax revenue, and local/state/national governments can spend the revenue on more projects to support the general welfare. But if a lot of people decide to start saving (or hoarding, think banks pulling out of the stock market or something I guess) instead of spending, the numerical amount of money and resources remains the same, but much less gets done. Which really sucks, because saving money is generally quite beneficial to an individual.

Sort of a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma. Everyone (in theory) benefits when everyone is spending, but the individual who saves wisely reduces everyone else's quality of life by some value, while increasing his own by more.
Tragedy of the commons. Self interest is often in opposition to common good.

 

[wriggz]

Sort of a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma. Everyone (in theory) benefits when everyone is spending, but the individual who saves wisely reduces everyone else's quality of life by some value, while increasing his own by more.
Tragedy of the commons. Self interest is often in opposition to common good.

The only issue is the "individual".

I don't know who these economists think these common people are who are saving a bunch of money. Everyone I know from the Part time minimum wage earner to the small business owner is just about living pay check to pay check. I would be very surprised to meet anyone saving the recommend 10% for a rainy day.

Take retirement savings and petitions (like people have those anymore) out of the equation and most people are living on credit. Somewhere along the line the money is being collected and not spread around, and I don't think the average Joe has any extra money to squirrel away even if they had the choice (and even then average people tend to spend to their limit).

 

[Dysole]

Shrug

It's very basic economics. Unfortunately, those basic economics assume everyone has perfect information and responds to that information completely rationally and instantaneously. These underlying assumptions are one of my biggest problems with the neoclassical model. The underlying principle is correct that the economy does best when consumption (people spending money) is high. Of course, then we discuss producer supply vs. consumer demand and all of the other fun little things you learn in the first part of econ. The problem is that real life is messy and no matter which economic model you use it won't actually fit real life perfectly. So you need to be aware of what your assumptions are and what the shortcomings are.

~Dysole, who if she remembers right at least in the US our current setup rips giant holes in every major economic theory

 

[Nukatha]

The only issue is the "individual".

I don't know who these economists think these common people are who are saving a bunch of money. Everyone I know from the Part time minimum wage earner to the small business owner is just about living pay check to pay check. I would be very surprised to meet anyone saving the recommend 10% for a rainy day.

Naturally, the 'individuals' who have the most impact are actually the extra-wealthy bankers and jerks who love gaming the system and watching the little number that says 'net worth' get two or three or more digits than an average citizen have a much larger impact. I didn't mean to imply that a guy who makes sub 50k a year and manages to somehow save 5k per year makes a big impact.

It's very basic economics. Unfortunately, those basic economics assume everyone has perfect information and responds to that information completely rationally and instantaneously.

Say, have you ever played Power Grid against an irrational player? It is absolutely infuriating.

 

[Rich10]

I really don't think it is the lack of jobs. Instead it is the lack of consumers that is stalling the economy.

Yes, but don't the consumers have money due to jobs?


The US has lost manufacturing jobs.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/29/news/economy/us-manufacturing-jobs/index.html

Why have we lost these jobs? Robots and better machines have taken a number of jobs. Trade deals and manufacturing moving to developing countries have taken others. I'm not a protectionist as most studies of protective tariffs show that they cost consumers more than they create wealth for workers who lose their jobs.

I'm not sure what the best path forward is. Turning protectionist as recommended by Trump and Sanders seems the wrong approach. Clinton suggests an increase in the minimum wage, but this runs the risk of eliminating some jobs. Trump's also suggested that illegal immigration hurts lower pay jobs. I can see how illegal immigrants (somewhere between 11 and 35 million in the US) would compete for the same jobs as blue collar workers, but you can pick your study based on your political orientation.

 

[Nukatha]

The ideal answer goes like this:
Production replaces people with robots
Company pays a smaller number of employees slightly better than before in order to maintain the robots
Lower cost to manufacture results in savings to the consumer
Lower price to consumer means that those still working (teacher, police, service worker, academic, engineer, anyone else) have more disposable income, due to prices dropping.
Those individuals now have their income freed up purchase nonessential life-enhancing products as they see fit, be they board games, massages, vacations, whatever.
More business spring up to fill this need for more service/life enhancing products, hiring the workers displaced by the reduction to production jobs.

This continues on to the point where few humans do manual labor, instead contributing to society either with a life-enhancing service, maintenance/operation of the robots, or research into future technologies.

Unfortunately, this all gets nipped in the bud when a company does not pass on its savings to the consumer, opting instead to sell their widgets at their original price, even after production costs drop to a half, quarter, or even less than what they were originally.

 

[Rich10]

Unfortunately, this all gets nipped in the bud when a company does not pass on its savings to the consumer, opting instead to sell their widgets at their original price, even after production costs drop to a half, quarter, or even less than what they were originally.

If the cost of production decreases, competitive forces should drive down the price. Do you agree?

What happens to the worker who doesn't have the skill set to maintain the robots, or do research into new technologies. These are the people who have been left behind in this economy. What type of life-enhancing service are you suggesting?

 

[Dysole]

Sort Of

As long as barrier to entry (how difficult to enter the business) remains low and there is not active collusion to keep prices high then yes prices would decrease. Are you confident that these hold?

Your hypothetical worker is one of the reasons why focusing more on improving our service industry is going to be more helpful in the long term. But automation is nothing new. Similar concerns were expressed at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

~Dysole, always making sure she checks assumptions