Using alinskys tactics against the far left

[RishiB]

When is that going to happen though? As automation takes jobs, it is going to be harder and harder for demand to outstrip supply. Without public policy we're only going to get deeper and deeper into that hole.

Logic it through -

If automation serves to create jobs, then adding to the pool of labour decreases wages.

If automation serves to nullify jobs, then adding to the pool of labour decreases wages.

Therefore -
By allowing demand to cherry pick supply, a bigger surplus of labour is created. This makes the wealthy wealthier, and the poor poorer.

Uncontrolled immigration and welfare increase ADDS to the surplus of labour.

Left wing equality policies is a LIE.

[Barnabas]

This would still be true regardless of labor pool size. A Walmart cashier can go get a better job, but Walmart is then going to hire another cashier- the shit job still exists as long as a human is needed to do it.

As long as automation increases production with fewer human laborers, the labor pool is only going to get more bloated, regardless of immigration or welfare. The market is only going to get worse and worse for workers- this is a problem that the free market won't handle.

no allowing it to continue to grow does nothing for the new jobs that appear. an expanded labor pool just makes those new jobs pay nothing since there are people willing to accept it since they currently earn nothing. one of the biggest issues is how labor is valued. i think the model currently in use is way past it's practical use.

[Gestopft]

If automation serves to nullify jobs, then adding to the pool of labour decreases wages.

no allowing it continue to grow does nothing for the new jobs that appear. an expanded labor pool just makes those new jobs pay nothing since there are people willing to accept it since they currently earn nothing. one of the biggest issues is how labor is valued. i think the model currently in use is way past it's practical use.

That is exactly my point. Automation IS already expanding, and IS going to continue to expand the labor pool. We may never have a market favorable to low-end workers again as technology continues improving.

You can do one of two things in this encroaching reality:
1) Accept that wages are going to fall farther and farther behind inflation as the labor pool expands, or
2) use public policy to ensure that citizens can enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

We can stop all immigration and end all welfare or whatever you want, but that would be a temporary bump in workers' bargaining power at best.

[Barnabas]

That is exactly my point. Automation IS already expanding, and IS going to continue to expand the labor pool. We may never have a market favorable to low-end workers again as technology continues improving.

You can do one of two things in this encroaching reality:
1) Accept that wages are going to fall farther and farther behind inflation as the labor pool expands, or
2) use public policy to ensure that citizens can enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

We can stop all immigration and end all welfare or whatever you want, but that would be a temporary bump in workers' bargaining power at best.

Not if we do like my last thought states that we need a better labor model than we currently have. Then actually have a more responsible type of immigration policy than we currently have. Then having the federal government remind states that sanctuary laws are illegal and show them that their state laws aren't enforceable.

[Spectral]

...use public policy to ensure that citizens can enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

I agree with your core points, but I want to highlight that this isn't as trivial a statement as it seems. What qualifies as a "reasonable" standard of living? Different people seem to have very different gut feelings about what's reasonable. There is not an obviously correct version of what's reasonable, even if all of us have the gut feeling that we know what's reasonable.

[Gestopft]

Not if we do like my last thought states that we need a better labor model than we currently have.

Expand on this: what would you suggest for a better labor model?

[Gestopft]

I agree with your core points, but I want to highlight that this isn't as trivial a statement as it seems. What qualifies as a "reasonable" standard of living? Different people seem to have very different gut feelings about what's reasonable. There is not an obviously correct version of what's reasonable, even if all of us have the gut feeling that we know what's reasonable.

That's completely fair. People will disagree on the details, but there's a range that should work. Mere subsistence would be at the very bottom. I'd prefer higher than that, but obviously not so high that businesses can't be successful.

[Spectral]

Glad to see someone else got a chuckle out of that.

If anyone's guilty of "trying to win every debate with logic and recitation of facts", it's spergy economists and other academics of all flavors. These folks tend to lean left, but are occasionally libertarian as well. I'm thinking specifically of people that try to explain using empirical analysis why more open immigration is a good thing; the libertarians at EconLog come to mind on this. Whether they're right or not, they're horribly missing the point that voters don't make decisions based on fractions of a percent differences in nominal GDP - they do it based on feels.

[PosPosPos]

Haha, you apparently accuse combat-related disabled veterans of being welfare abusers, you're in reality worse than you claim not to be.

Well, luckily for us, the number of welfare abusers and people who fake medical conditions are in the tiny minority. In any case I was speaking in general terms, but they shoot themselves in the feet out of guilt, because if it didn't apply to them they wouldn't even realize it's about them.

[mvaliz]

Increasingly I believe the liberal problem is not going to be solved with outreach, logical discourse, or similar tactics, but with a great divorce.

I've been feeling the same way of the insane sect that has taken over the Republican Party - so, feel free to leave the country and form your own whenever you wish. It's pretty clear you care less for the country and more for your own selfish interests when you vote for Dump to "keep the party together" knowing damn well he will flush the entire constitution down the corporate toilet.

So, by all means, go find an island where you can call Republimerica - a place where you can never ammend the constitution, where you can shoot your neighbors without fear of having your guns taken from you, where religion dictates over government policy, where Gays are considered some sort of mental disease that's punishable as a crime, and corporations are free to screw anybody over without any laws restricting their power and control...

...having writing all that, I realize you don't even need to form your own country - go live in Iran, as that's pretty much exactly what you want.

- - - Updated - - -

You are a puppet vocalist at the bottom rung of the ladder for the leadership of the left.

Is that clear enough for you?

Your attempts to help the lowest paid private sector workers is not welcome by us me.

Fixed that for you

[RishiB]

Expand on this: what would you suggest for a better labor model?

Easy.

Quality over quantity.

Invest in education and training programmes for natives, which reduces the need to rely on cheap immigration as a source of labour.

Canada is in very early stages of labour pool growth. In 10 or 20 years times though, their labour pool will have grown, and their private sector workforce will be treated like maggots, as they are in countries like the UK and US.

This demograph of maggots are the people who rightfully voted for brexit, in case you didnt realise.

[fengosa]

Easy.

Quality over quantity.

Invest in education and training programmes for natives, which reduces the need to rely on cheap immigration as a source of labour.

Canada is in very early stages of labour pool growth. In 10 or 20 years times though, their labour pool will have grown, and their private sector workforce will be treated like maggots, as they are in countries like the UK and US.

This demograph of maggots are the people who rightfully voted for brexit, in case you didnt realise.

As a Canadian I'm not specifically concerned about our working conditions. Employees are legally obligated to provide 2 weeks vacation, maternity / paternity leave, a reasonable minimum wage on top of health care and other social programs. There's no reason to believe a higher population will degrade those things.

[RishiB]

As a Canadian I'm not specifically concerned about our working conditions. Employees are legally obligated to provide 2 weeks vacation, maternity / paternity leave, a reasonable minimum wage on top of health care and other social programs. There's no reason to believe a higher population will degrade those things.

Except when higher population exceeds that of the ability for public services to cater for.

Even the extreme left wing in Britain has finally acknowledged population growth is now exerting too much pressure on public services.

The reason you have no concerns over this in Canada is because you are in very early stages and it will be decades before your country experiences this.

Make no mistake about it though, you are going down that path, and it will hit your country eventually based on your current political stance.

Your country already has a bullshit cherry picking system, and the international community will call upon your resources more and more as their own countries can not cope.

Britain played a helping hand in you taking in more refugees that you originally wanted to, whilst us Brits took in virtually zero because we can not cope with any more.

As time goes on, you will be forced to cherry pick less if you want access to to European market, which, you do, and adopt an open border policy, like the rest of Europe.

Your pool of labour will grow, and you'll find yourselves up shits creek.

Unless of course, you sacrifice every arguement you've ever made about morality and equality and become a hypocrytical nation whose words mean nothing......like Sweden has become.


Ps - 2 weeks vacation as in 14 days annual leave? Wtf, that is beyond abysmall. I started with 20 days annual leave in my company, and here in Britain, that is even considered abysmall. Most people in full time jobs get 25 days annual leave minimum.....

[Mizix]

These problems, while exist, are perfectly solvable - as demonstrated by a large number of countries with high taxes and large welfare systems, stably scoring on top of quality of life and corruption-free indexes. All you need is a system of clear feedback, when the government lets the citizens know what it considers, and citizens let the government know what they want. In the US this system is kind of broken currently, as the government has become too big and powerful - well, it is up to people to fix it then!

No, they're not... I'm not sure where on Earth do you live, but there is no country on this planet that has solved those problems. Some are better than others at reducing the amounts of occurrences or at masking them, but corruption exists and will always exist. Corruption-free countries are an invention, because when people are involved you're bound to have a few bad apples. No welfare system on this planet has the perfect allocation, money investment and money use; waste and inefficiency exist everywhere. Moreover, no government has a clear feedback and transparent "one on one" relationship with its citizens. Of course, there is a large margin of improvement, in some countries more than others, but you have an idealised view of how much regular people actually matter in day to day decision making at the highest level of the power hierarchy.

By the way, I don't disagree with you and let me stress again that I have nothing against welfare systems, I do believe governments are better positioned to make structural nation-wide planning and decisions, just wanted to point out there are reasons why people don't always trust them with their money and would rather chose their own charities.

[Barnabas]

No, they're not... I'm not sure where on Earth do you live, but there is no country on this planet that has solved those problems. Some are better than others at reducing the amounts of occurrences or at masking them, but corruption exists and will always exist. Corruption-free countries are an invention, because when people are involved you're bound to have a few bad apples. No welfare system on this planet has the perfect allocation, money investment and money use; waste and inefficiency exist everywhere. Moreover, no government has a clear feedback and transparent "one on one" relationship with its citizens. Of course, there is a large margin of improvement, in some countries more than others, but you have an idealised view of how much regular people actually matter in day to day decision making at the highest level of the power hierarchy.

By the way, I don't disagree with you and let me stress again that I have nothing against welfare systems, I do believe governments are better positioned to make structural nation-wide planning and decisions, just wanted to point out there are reasons why people don't always trust them with their money and would rather chose their own charities.

Employment focused welfare to work programs perform really well. They work even better if they focus on you finding a good job than just the first one you are offered. They seem to be the most efficient use of tax dollars when it comes to performance.

[Theinquisition]

Well, luckily for us, the number of welfare abusers and people who fake medical conditions are in the tiny minority. In any case I was speaking in general terms, but they shoot themselves in the feet out of guilt, because if it didn't apply to them they wouldn't even realize it's about them.

Once again you make accusations with no proof. Pretty sure that counts as flaming

[Deleted]

You're not the spokesperson of the lower class. Is that clear enough for you? It's not like I've never worked with people who were in the position you described. It's not like I don't have friends from that demographic. I have never met anyone who would actually think any of the shit you've said here is a good idea.

maybe you should learn that the working class is left for different reasons than the 'cultural' left - typically the former do not like the later.

[Garnier Fructis]

Funny how you chose to compare a criminal with someone that has a religious viewpoint. It speaks volumes of you. AKA, you are using your own form of bigotry to vote for a shitty candidate simply because you don't agree with someone else's beliefs. And they say Republicans are the bigoted ones.

I'm sorry if that's how you chose to understand that. The point is not to say that someone with a religious viewpoint is on par with a criminal. The point is that most people would consider the criminal to be the worse candidate, but that it's not an objective thing. Because introducing ID in schools would, in my opinion, do generations of harm greater than theft despite not being a crime, and that would make them a worse candidate in my view.

[Bollocks]

Left wing governments buy votes by artificially growing the public sector (causing stress on the tax payer), and also by promising immigrants and welfare recipients higher quality of life (causing more stress on the tax payer).

The left wing is one big fat lie whose policies crush the hard working tax payer into oblivion, forcing them to work rediculously long hours for next yo nothing.

They then blame the outcome on big businesses for a situation THEY created.

This is nonsense. Most of what you said is nonsense, except for the corporation thing that is right, though on the other side of the coin trumpistas are doing the same thing.

[Spectral]

I'm sorry if that's how you chose to understood that. The point is not to say that someone with a religious viewpoint is on par with a criminal. The point is that most people would consider the criminal to be the worse candidate, but that it's not an objective thing. Because introducing ID in schools would, in my opinion, do generations of harm greater than theft despite not being a crime, and that would make them a worse candidate in my view.

I agree with your position on this. I'll prefer a degenerate that proposes policy positions I agree with to a basically decent human being that proposes policy positions that I think are destructive. I don't really care all that much if I would like to have dinner with a given politician - I care what they're actually going to do.