Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Theodarzna]

The US added an underwhelming 266,000 jobs in April, and some companies say they are struggling to find workers even as the economy reopens. Critics say enhanced unemployment benefits are to blame.
CNN’s @smerconish
explores. https://cnn.it/2RCzK36

Yes people, it's not the low wages offered but the barely adequate unemployment benefits. For argument sake, the benefits don't equal say $1k/week. It's close or barely better than some minimum wage job. So yeah, the market is telling the employers that you should raise your wage.

I see Republicans of course can't take it that people are not working for horrible wages and places such as Montana and South Carolina are taking away benefits. This really might be one of the biggest Asshole moves ever. Trying to make people work for wages people do not find suitable to live on.

What an incredibly load the Chamber of Commerce people are trying to hawk. Low end wages haven't budged, "Labor Shortage" just means "Fuck, we need slaves we don't have to pay".

[Endus]

The US added an underwhelming 266,000 jobs in April, and some companies say they are struggling to find workers even as the economy reopens. Critics say enhanced unemployment benefits are to blame.
CNN’s @smerconish
explores. https://cnn.it/2RCzK36

Yes people, it's not the low wages offered but the barely adequate unemployment benefits. For argument sake, the benefits don't equal say $1k/week. It's close or barely better than some minimum wage job. So yeah, the market is telling the employers that you should raise your wage.

I see Republicans of course can't take it that people are not working for horrible wages and places such as Montana and South Carolina are taking away benefits. This really might be one of the biggest Asshole moves ever. Trying to make people work for wages people do not find suitable to live on.

If there are potential laborers out there, and they're not taking your job offer, it's because you're not offering enough in pay and benefits.

Pay more.

If you can't, your business model is exploitative and abusive and your business deserves to fail.

The issue is not unemployment benefits. The issue is capitalists who are too used to holding every single card when it comes to labor "negotiations", and they're completely unprepared to handle it when they get literally any pushback whatsoever from workers.

[Paranoid Android]

If there are potential laborers out there, and they're not taking your job offer, it's because you're not offering enough in pay and benefits.

Pay more.

If you can't, your business model is exploitative and abusive and your business deserves to fail.

The issue is not unemployment benefits. The issue is capitalists who are too used to holding every single card when it comes to labor "negotiations", and they're completely unprepared to handle it when they get literally any pushback whatsoever from workers.

Well yes. That is what Montana and South Carolina and I'm betting more Republican states will use the government to help businesses employ people at a non living wage.



Oh what I forgot to mention in my original post was I am disheartened since I think the people most affected will just go back to work or whatever. I'm guessing here, but idk if their voting or political power is big enough for this to be a factor. As usual I give Republicans credit in they just do shit, and don't give a bleep and see what becomes of it after the fact.

[Levelfive]

No its not. Well being is securing the bag. Like me with health care I can access any time is actually better than me with none of that. I can put a dollar price tag on well being.

The issue of Liberals, of which I'd dare suggest even you are just a "right"-liberal versus these "left"-liberals, is they don't really mean it when it comes to someone's best interests. Because the lot of them are of a social class separate and with completely different interests than those they might claim to want to help, and are painfully ignorant of that fact.

Oh man, right? Imagine being so cartoonishly self-involved and lacking in self awareness that you think you know better than the people you're talking about without even realizing it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nor would they think you have a legitimate point of view.

Lol. Yes, I am pro-democracy, so I'm well aware. And if people want to drink lead water to own the libs, I don't consider that my business.

[Zan15]

Liberals care about what they perceive as everyone's best interest.

You cannot approach governance without taking the individual point of view into account. A country is, at its core, just a group of individuals. They don't hate democracy, they just prefer a more local version of it.

"Well-being" is VERY subjective. That is the heart of the problem.

well shit crazy nick over there is the only one who does not want X.... oh well we have to take the individual point of view into account and not do X for the other 99.9996%

BTW X is breathing.

guess not everyone wants to breath!

[Endus]

Well yes. That is what Montana and South Carolina and I'm betting more Republican states will use the government to help businesses employ people at a non living wage.



Oh what I forgot to mention in my original post was I am disheartened since I think the people most affected will just go back to work or whatever. I'm guessing here, but idk if their voting or political power is big enough for this to be a factor. As usual I give Republicans credit in they just do shit, and don't give a bleep and see what becomes of it after the fact.

It's kind of silly, because the American economic decline is precisely that; American. Canada's economy is largely doing okay through this pandemic. It's making a really strong argument up north here to give more consideration to basic income systems; we've tested them a few times, but this has practically been a nation-wide kind of thing and it's kind of just . . . working, as cobbled-together and half-assed as any emergency measures would be.

[Zan15]

The US added an underwhelming 266,000 jobs in April, and some companies say they are struggling to find workers even as the economy reopens. Critics say enhanced unemployment benefits are to blame.
CNN’s @smerconish
explores. https://cnn.it/2RCzK36

Yes people, it's not the low wages offered but the barely adequate unemployment benefits. For argument sake, the benefits don't equal say $1k/week. It's close or barely better than some minimum wage job. So yeah, the market is telling the employers that you should raise your wage.

I see Republicans of course can't take it that people are not working for horrible wages and places such as Montana and South Carolina are taking away benefits. This really might be one of the biggest Asshole moves ever. Trying to make people work for wages people do not find suitable to live on.

Crazy part the media is not reporting is if you take out the Northeast/NY + West coast in those calculations they are making no where near 16 dollars an hour on unemployment.

Take Louisiana for instance
$10.00 an hour job = $ 232 a week unemployment + 300 dollar bonus = 532.

$10.00 an hour job = 400 dollars a week.

Are they really complaining about an extra 132 dollars for not working?
That's $3.30 an hour difference.

So that's 13.30 an hour not the 16+ republicans are crying about

How about those states taking it away?

SC = $185 + $300 = 485.00 or 12.125 an hour. Not the 16+ they are crying about.

Fast food workers in SC make an average of $9.23
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_sc.htm


Montana = $192 + 300 = 492.00 = 12.30
Fast Food workers = $10.93

oh no can't bump people up to 12.30 an hour and give them decent benefits!!!

[Kellhound]

Again, these things are quantifiable and qualifiable. They are not just perception. Pushing that angle is pretty much the definition of disinformation.



Not only can you, in a representative democratic system, you definitively have to. That's what the "representative" part means.

No, your "quantifiable and qualifiable" are just what you perceive the answer to be.

No, again, they are representing individuals. They may act on the aggregate, but it still comes down to individuals.

- - - Updated - - -

"more local version" when it comes to law making such a none statement. "why yes, we care about individual rights, like our rights to tell trans kids they can't play sports."

They can play sports. Biological males can play male sports, and biological females can play female sports.

[Endus]

No, your "quantifiable and qualifiable" are just what you perceive the answer to be.

That's not what those words mean, no.

Refusal to accept reality is not an argument. It's just you being obstinate.

No, again, they are representing individuals. They may act on the aggregate, but it still comes down to individuals.

It's amusing when you directly contradict yourself within just two sentences, but I'm baffled as to how you seem unaware that your position is internally contradictory.

[uuuhname]

They can play sports. Biological males can play male sports, and biological females can play female sports.

you believing this isn't surprising, what is surprising is you seem to think this will convince others that your point of view isn't objectively terrible.

[Endus]

They can play sports. Biological males can play male sports, and biological females can play female sports.

Focusing on terms like "biological males/females" is just transphobic/TERF anti-scientific horse shit, in this context. "Biologically", sex is not a binary to begin with. There are many categories of intersex, biologically speaking. And that's without getting into the point that sex and gender aren't the same thing, and tying the two together is an argument rooted in bigotry and without merit. Or that gender isn't even a given binary to begin with, either; there are plenty of historical examples of gender non-binary individuals, and even cultures who respected more than two identified and codified gender roles.

On biology, we don't even need to dig any further than androgen insensitivity syndrome; women with AIS are morphologically and by expression female in every respect; the only way to identify them as having the condition is genetic testing.

Are they "biologically female" because of that morphology? In that case, any "biological male" who adopts that feminine morphology, by whatever means whether they be hormonal or surgical, is also "biologically female".

Are they "biologically male" because of their XY genetics? Sure, you go try telling those women they're "actually men", despite having a uterus and so on.

Either way, your bullshit transphobic "biological" argument falls apart. And that's before getting into a few dozen, if not few hundred, other iterations. Your views aren't based in biology, they're based in personal bigotries against transgender people, and nothing more.

[Kellhound]

What's "local" about hating women, queer people, and people of color, exactly? Because all the "small government" bullshit is and always has been a dogwhistle - it isn't about freedom from government, it's about being free to abuse people without government intervention.

Let's take a look at some of the best hits:

"Taxes are theft" = "We don't want our tax dollars going towards things that might possibly benefit minorities"
"Regulations kill business" = "I'm upset because I can't treat my employees like serfs or ravage the environment for short term profit"
"Abortion is murder" = "Women having reproductive autonomy so they have more social mobility scares and confuses me"
"Law and order" = "I miss Jim Crow"
"Small towns are the backbone of America" = "My ideal vision of American life is one where no one has hope for anything better"

"Taxes are theft" = "It is not the purpose of government to fill in the blank."
"Regulations kill business" = "I have to compete against countries that don't have the costs associated with following our regulations."
"Abortion is murder" = "We are discussing the body inside her body, not her body alone."
"Law and order" = "Don't break the law, don't go to jail."
"Small towns are the backbone of America" = Why on earth would you want to live in a big city packed in like sardines? Life doesn't get better than small town America."

There are always two sides to a coin. You reject their views and arguments, they reject your views and arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

I always get a chuckle out of "people in X area are not the same as people in area Y" as if the people in X don't breath oxygen? drink water? huh????

So, humans are the same as sheep, we both breath air and drink water after all.

- - - Updated - - -

"People in cities" is just a dogwhistle for "minorities". Nixon pulled the same shit with his 'sirens in the night' crap.

This is the type of attitude that prevents either side from reaching out to the other.

[uuuhname]

So, humans are the same as sheep, we both breath air and drink water after all.

are you saying that neither should have access to clean air or water? do you like your sheep drinking contaminated water? do you prefer your sheep die before their time from carcinogens in the air? what absurd point are you trying to make here?

[Kellhound]

The US added an underwhelming 266,000 jobs in April, and some companies say they are struggling to find workers even as the economy reopens. Critics say enhanced unemployment benefits are to blame.
CNN’s @smerconish
explores. https://cnn.it/2RCzK36

Yes people, it's not the low wages offered but the barely adequate unemployment benefits. For argument sake, the benefits don't equal say $1k/week. It's close or barely better than some minimum wage job. So yeah, the market is telling the employers that you should raise your wage.

I see Republicans of course can't take it that people are not working for horrible wages and places such as Montana and South Carolina are taking away benefits. This really might be one of the biggest Asshole moves ever. Trying to make people work for wages people do not find suitable to live on.

$1000 a week is $52,000 a year/$25 an hour. That is significantly above minimum wage.

[uuuhname]

This is the type of attitude that prevents either side from reaching out to the other.

no it's not, actually, one side wants to make sure the things that benefit them benefits others while the other side doesn't out of some ridiculous mind set that dogs should eat other dogs.

[Kellhound]

If there are potential laborers out there, and they're not taking your job offer, it's because you're not offering enough in pay and benefits.

Pay more.

If you can't, your business model is exploitative and abusive and your business deserves to fail.

The issue is not unemployment benefits. The issue is capitalists who are too used to holding every single card when it comes to labor "negotiations", and they're completely unprepared to handle it when they get literally any pushback whatsoever from workers.

Manufacturing around here pays well above minimum wage. There is a lack of competent humans to take the jobs no matter how much you paid.

[Endus]

no it's not, actually, one side wants to make sure the things that benefit them benefits others while the other side doesn't out of some ridiculous mind set that dogs should eat other dogs.

This is kind of the root of the whole issue.

The left wing's basic premise is "let's make things better for everyone".
The right wing's basic premise is "let's pick winners and losers so we can shit on the losers and exploit their suffering".

You can't both-sides that, as if the left-wingers are just "picking different winners". That fundamentally ignores their actual positions and tries to argue as if they're just different-minded right-wingers.

- - - Updated - - -

Manufacturing around here pays well above minimum wage. There is a lack of competent humans to take the jobs no matter how much you paid.

Then pay more.

Seriously; if you cannot get enough qualified workers, pay for training, and upkeep during training. Hell, put a contractual obligation for so many years of work after they graduate, if you want; I'm not opposed to the company ensuring a return on their investment, within reason.

You're complaining that employers aren't willing to shoulder the costs of training employees. Well, tough nuts. If you're not willing to pay for training, and positions are going unfilled, you clearly don't need to fill those positions that badly.

If you can't get people to take jobs at what you're offering in pay, pay more.

Particularly as "well above minimum wage" in the USA is meaningless; even if you're living in the boonies, being offered less than $40k/year or so is an exploitative insult. If you're expected skilled labor, you should be offering significantly more.

[Kellhound]

well shit crazy nick over there is the only one who does not want X.... oh well we have to take the individual point of view into account and not do X for the other 99.9996%

BTW X is breathing.

guess not everyone wants to breath!

99.9996% want to take X out and cut their still beating heart out of their chest, but X's objections do not matter. (Yes, excessively dramatic example but the principle remains.)

[Edge-]

99.9996% want to take X out and cut their still beating heart out of their chest, but X's objections do not matter. (Yes, excessively dramatic example but the principle remains.)

Excessively dramatic and pointless. The Temple of Doom is a movie yo.

[Endus]

99.9996% want to take X out and cut their still beating heart out of their chest, but X's objections do not matter. (Yes, excessively dramatic example but the principle remains.)

You're making an argument against "tyranny of the majority" here.

The problem with this is twofold.

First, the obvious; all government, in this argument, is tyranny. If not tyranny of the majority, then tyranny of some minority. And historically, those other tyrannies, the aristocracies and dictatorships and so on, they've almost always turned out worse for the people. Whining about "tyranny of the majority" is just avoiding discussing what tyranny you want to inflict on everyone else, against their interests, instead.

The second, more dishonest, problem, is that you consciously enjoy the benefits and protections of that "tyranny". No one advocating this wants to be sovereign; they want to retain all the protections and benefits of living in that society. They just don't want to accept the costs and duties thereof. It's entirely self-serving and has nothing to do with individualism or liberty. It's just "fuck you, got mine".

Given those two problems, anyone expressing this attitude can safely be discarded as having nothing to say worth hearing.