On Bernie Sanders

[Chou Toshio]

The Federal Minimum Wage should be seen mainly as a tool for the labor force. It prevents companies from playing games with their employees, threatening to lower their wages to unfair lows in return for higher productivity. As such, the main reason for its existence is for negotiation.

The reason why I believe the threat of automation makes the min. wage necessary is that I honestly believe that human labor is ultimately the preferred alternative to most corporations. Humans are easy to program, they maintain themselves, and they can adapt to changing conditions readily. They are also a pleasure to work with, and in cases like Starbucks, are vital for maintaining their customer base. Capital, on the other hand, require extensive maintenance at the cost of the company, and requires expensive labor to readjust. The threat of automation is not mainly a reduction of demand for labor, rather the threat, in itself, is a problem to be concerned with. It engenders fear among the labor force, leading it to accept lower wages in exchange for higher productivity. The minimum wage provides security against this threat. It is no coincidence that since 2005, the real value of the minimum wage has reached the price-floor for the first time since its inception. This effect can be explained as a decoupling of prices with wages. Workers are no longer concerned with what their work gets them, rather they are simply happy to have a job. Thus, markets have shifted, raising prices to cater to populations that control capital, and therefore the wealth of the nation.

I think that "happy just to have a job" is not entirely accurate of the labor struggles of recent years.

While it's true that much of the able labor force has given up looking for work due to the poor market, looking at "occupy everything" as well as recent movements specifically aimed at min wage and other labor issues, I think there has been adequately aggressive moves by affected labor segments. However, the end result is as you've stated-- undoubtedly weak negotiation power for the majority of labor segments, not just hourly pay workers.

That said, I think it's also foolish to see automation as only a threat-- only a part of negotiation.

Companies are strongly incentivizes to adopt technology and cut labor costs. And in an era where a mobile upstart like Uber can stomp out an age-old industry over night, companies are more than ever aware of the need to adapt and transform-- or perish. So investment in R&D and capital investment will be increasing, not decreasing.

I think you are not giving enough thought to the very real increased incentives to automate that would result from a minimum wage increase.

Even if Starbucks' model requires human baristas to deliver their brand of customer experience, there are or will be competitors who compete or differentiate through automation. The result will be an overall decrease in human labor in the market. If humans cost more, than robots will hold a bigger market share.

None of this is saying that a minimum wage increase is a bad idea-- because the positive benefits could have a social good outweighing the impacts of these phenomena. It's all about degrees, and where real market forces fall. However, denying that these phenomena will exist to some degree is being naive.

 

[Tomahawk]

as a european (dutch to be specific) here is my opinion on your presidential candidates:

clinton - corrupt/hyprocritical as fuck but 99% guaranteed as president
sanders - seems pretty good but will drop dead during office unfortunately
trump - what a fucking retard
carson - seemed ok until i heard things he said. trump 2.0
cruz - dumbass
bush - lmao
rubio - not sure but has a good image. don't really know about his opinions tho
o malley - best candidate but not getting elected

 

[LonelyNess]

I think that "happy just to have a job" is not entirely accurate of the labor struggles of recent years.

While it's true that much of the able labor force has given up looking for work due to the poor market, looking at "occupy everything" as well as recent movements specifically aimed at min wage and other labor issues, I think there has been adequately aggressive moves by affected labor segments. However, the end result is as you've stated-- undoubtedly weak negotiation power for the majority of labor segments, not just hourly pay workers.

That said, I think it's also foolish to see automation as only a threat-- only a part of negotiation.

Companies are strongly incentivizes to adopt technology and cut labor costs. And in an era where a mobile upstart like Uber can stomp out an age-old industry over night, companies are more than ever aware of the need to adapt and transform-- or perish. So investment in R&D and capital investment will be increasing, not decreasing.

I think you are not giving enough thought to the very real increased incentives to automate that would result from a minimum wage increase.

Even if Starbucks' model requires human baristas to deliver their brand of customer experience, there are or will be competitors who compete or differentiate through automation. The result will be an overall decrease in human labor in the market. If humans cost more, than robots will hold a bigger market share.

None of this is saying that a minimum wage increase is a bad idea-- because the positive benefits could have a social good outweighing the impacts of these phenomena. It's all about degrees, and where real market forces fall. However, denying that these phenomena will exist to some degree is being naive.

I would rather we increase the minimum wage such that it truly incentivizes companies to go wholesale automization, that way we can have a real conversation about going toward a basic income model (isnt this the dream? a society that doesn't HAVE to do menial labor so we can focus on arts / sciences / enjoying our 90 years). Otherwise we're stuck in this weird in between period where most jobs don't REALLY have to exist, but do solely because people need jobs or they'll starve to death.

 

[Shinryu]

If any candidate can promise to retroactively clear off all my student debt for college, they'd have my vote in a heartbeat. Hopefully they're not only thinking new entering college students who will likely graduate into a far better economy than crap during the recent recession I graduated into, plenty of us still relatively new to the job market (under 5 years) could use a break...

I don't think any one republican candidate will win the presidency, when you have Trump and Carson threatening (and Trump likely following through if it happens) to run as independents if they're not the party pick, that's just gonna split their vote whereas the democrats will likely rally behind whoever wins between Hillary or Sanders in popularity. So from that perspective, even though republicans have made gains in controlling the senate and house, they're likely going to be too split to muster the presidency, which means we'll just get another 4-8 years of nothing really happening since both sides will be bitching at each other too much. If the republicans somehow win the presidency though, I have no doubt they'll push through their agenda as fast as they can unlike when Obama was first elected and democrats were too unwilling to use force to push their stuff through, which led to backlash due to inactivity (considering their promises of "change") and republicans seizing control. Unless your party is in control of 2/3 branches, there isn't going to be much a party will be able to accomplish, and even then that other 1/3rd can still block and make things difficult to pass.

As for who I'd like to see? I'll wait to see which two evils emerge and vote on the lesser of the two from my perspective, as always.

 

[DM]

Chou Toshio If you don't support a $15 minimum wage, what about $11?

 

[Stratos]

as a european (dutch to be specific) here is my opinion on your presidential candidates:

clinton - corrupt/hyprocritical as fuck but 99% guaranteed as president
sanders - seems pretty good but will drop dead during office unfortunately
trump - what a fucking retard
carson - seemed ok until i heard things he said. trump 2.0
cruz - dumbass
bush - lmao
rubio - not sure but has a good image. don't really know about his opinions tho
o malley - best candidate but not getting elected

as someone from omalley's home state he was pretty terrible, full of empty promises and never sending money where he said it would go. his mouth may say good candidate but his past says total filth.

my two favorite candidates are rand paul and bernie sanders in that order, because theyre the only ones i actually trust to not sell out the common man to wall street. Rand is looking pretty fucked though, so it looks like this libertarian will be voting democrat in his first election

 

[Tomahawk]

as someone from omalley's home state he was pretty terrible, full of empty promises and never sending money where he said it would go. his mouth may say good candidate but his past says total filth.

my two favorite candidates are rand paul and bernie sanders in that order, because theyre the only ones i actually trust to not sell out the common man to wall street. Rand is looking pretty fucked though, so it looks like this libertarian will be voting democrat in his first election

oh well that is disappointing to hear. i caught the democratic debate where o malley looked p good.

i'm not a fan of rand paul. wants a flat income tax (which is retarded, come on), and he is one of the most pro-life candidates and also anti-gay marriage afaik

edit: also did people unironically vote for trump?

 

[DM]

No. I wish they were. And yes, for a "Libertarian", Rand Paul looks and sounds just like any other Republican candidate (though he does show intelligence when it comes to social issues such as drug legalization).

 

[Minwu]

trump is leading in polls, i'm not too solid on the nomination process but i don't think voting for that is underway yet...?

 

[DM]

No, actual voting has not yet begun, which means these polling numbers are deeply flawed and inaccurate. Likely millions of voters haven't even started really paying attention yet; I recommend following Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight for their articles on why Trump will not win the nomination (chiefly, Republicans that do not support aren't just ambivalent toward him, the downright hate him and will unify behind someone else).

 

[Chou Toshio]

Chou Toshio If you don't support a $15 minimum wage, what about $11?

I guess what I really want to say is that I'm uncomfortable with price floors/ceilings.

However, I do strongly support the motives behind the movement. I'll say that I would want low paid workers to get higher wages-- 11 or 15 both sound reasonable to me. We need policy to help get us there. Ideally, I'd like to see something that punishes/incentivizes in order to change market dynamic, but admit that a min wage increase could potentially deliver on a better outcome (than what we have now) while being more politically and logistically viable that the course macro economics would dictate.

 

[Tomahawk]

No. I wish they were. And yes, for a "Libertarian", Rand Paul looks and sounds just like any other Republican candidate (though he does show intelligence when it comes to social issues such as drug legalization).

Well to keep in mind when Europeans look at American politics, most Democratic candidates wouldn't be called left here, most probably right and Republican candidates would be far right wing. You guys' politics are just way more conservative/to the right. If you poll Democratic vs Republican candidate here in the Netherlands the Democratic candidate will always win w/ like 90/10 min.

No, actual voting has not yet begun, which means these polling numbers are deeply flawed and inaccurate. Likely millions of voters haven't even started really paying attention yet; I recommend following Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight for their articles on why Trump will not win the nomination (chiefly, Republicans that do not support aren't just ambivalent toward him, the downright hate him and will unify behind someone else).

Second in polls is Ben Carson... not much better (yeah prison totally proves being gay is a choice and pyramids were used for storing grain...). Honestly though I think the Republican higher ups would want Rubio to win and I think he will. I think he's the only wouldn't lose to Clinton, because Trump Carson and Cruz surely would I think.

 

[Myzozoa]

http://callyourgirlfriend.com/post/134065869269/episode-37-thanksgiving-warriors

start listening at 13:30, they go into some arguments for hillary over sanders. it's a good listen.

i hate hillary and dont vote in primaries. bernie has better ideas, but the american government is intractable atm, mainly due to our choice to maintain a global military presence, which is actually why bernie is cool, he may try to reduce the extent of it to fund his domestic platforms.

 

[thesecondbest]

If you hate Hillary and understand econ vote O'Malley xD
But in all seriousness sanders' plans won't work. Government influence is what has caused college tuition to go so high. Student loans seduce people into going to college and then they can't pay off the loans so colleges are forced to raise prices tc etc. He also is pro affirmative action which makes it worse by putting minorities who aren't ready into tougher colleges. Then they drop out, leave with no skills and a lot of debt. We need to end government involvement in economic ways and instead improve infrastructure in these poor minority neighborhoods.
As for the minimum wage making it 15 will make workers get paid.nothing as they will be laid off and replaced by machines. Studies have shown a 10.10/qage is the right number which is what O'Malley passed as governor.
I'm on phone so I'll leave it at that for. Now. O'Malley. 2020! (Cuz he ain't winning this cycle :( )

 

[KM]

He also is pro affirmative action which makes it worse by putting minorities who aren't ready into tougher colleges. )

no

please do not look at "stats" about minority groups doing poorer than their privileged counterparts in x ivy league college and draw the conclusion that affirmative action is bad. what there are definitive stats out about is that those minority groups in x ivy league college tend to do far better overall than their other minority counterparts in colleges that are less "tough".

the idea that we shouldn't have affirmative action and that somehow long-standing systems of oppression are just going to balance themselves out by us being "race-blind" is frankly bullshit that we waded through for the entire second half of the twentieth century and are only just beginning to challenge. at the end of the day, a minority who accomplished the same things as you pre-college abso-fucking-lutely deserves to take your place because accomplishing those same things while being an oppressed individual is not an easy thing to do

also, those challenges certainly don't stop once you get to college. as a queer person in a stem major, I have literally had multiple interactions with people where they say things like "why are you even in this class?" and "wow, i didn't know people like you existed here" - and to be fair, they have a point. looking around a 200-person lecture hall and seeing no one that looks remotely like you is demoralizing and saddening, and not feeling comfortable or wanted in those group settings is very counterproductive to minority groups succeeding in school. this, of course, doesn't even take into account the oppression i face in all other aspects of my life in college - slurs, microaggressions, etc - all things that make navigating through college significantly more challenging than it would be if I were a more privileged individual: and i go to UCLA, which is pretty progressive.

but we're ready for "tougher colleges", and to suggest otherwise is honestly patronizing and demeaning. trust me, we've dealt with a lot of shit to get to where we are, and we'll continue to do so.

(p.s. for those wondering, yes, i do benefit from affirmative action personally by being gay/queer. to my knowledge, it's not a universal / country-wide thing, though.)

 

[JermemGoffdoff]

Second in polls is Ben Carson... not much better (yeah prison totally proves being gay is a choice and pyramids were used for storing grain...). Honestly though I think the Republican higher ups would want Rubio to win and I think he will. I think he's the only wouldn't lose to Clinton, because Trump Carson and Cruz surely would I think.

I think working as a brain surgeon might have made Ben Carson insane. With his "work incentives" for illegal immigrants, he's basically pro slavery for crying out loud...

But I don't think it really matters that he thinks being gay is a choice. It doesn't really matter for Republicans either way. They don't exactly hold the "right to choose" to be unalienable. Plus, I personally think that being gay is a choice in the sense that I strongly doubt there is a biological/genetic basis for being gay. Some people are just more compelled to make it than others are. I think prison can be traumatic enough to cause someone who had been raped or forced into gay sex to strongly believe that they are gay. Gay people should be protected in the same sense that Black people should be protected. Anyone who is discriminated because they partake in gay behavior should be protected for the same reason someone who is discriminated because they are 1/16 Black should still be protected.

 

[Shrug]

He also is pro affirmative action which makes it worse by putting minorities who aren't ready into tougher colleges. )

yeah Kitten Milk did a good job of letting u know what the social basis is for affirmative action, but it's likely not to sway u so here is the practical basis: being "more qualified" than someone in terms of scores / grades in HS does not make u a better college student than that person. competitive [i use the word in the sense that they are desirable and deny a bunch of ppl who want to go, usually schools at which affirmative action is practiced] schools let in overqualified applicants for the demands of their school. agree with me theres a certain threshold of intellegence u need to go to a ""good college"" - there are ofc ppl who fall below that standard, and they should not be let in. but once u reach that level it matters little what ur hs gpa and scores are; other factors influence performence in college and life a lot more. those "other factors" might include background and experience - such as being of a race or gender identity / sexuality differing from that of the u.s norm. combine this w/ the historical oppression of the groups above and affermative action looks pretty okay. ofc this would change if theyre letting in insanely underqualified applicants who cannot do the coursework and need to drop out but ive seen no evidence of this occuring ever

 

[Bughouse]

To quote The West Wing: "When voters want a national daddy - someone to be tough and strong and defend the country - they vote Republican. When they want a mommy: someone to give them jobs, health care - the policy equivalent of matzo ball soup - they vote Democratic."

This applies to elections as a whole and spells potential trouble for Clinton (or Sanders) provided the GOP puts up someone electable by independents, which out of this election basically means just Rubio unless Christie or Kasich somehow surge over the course of the primaries. Demographics may still help out Clinton or Sanders, but the issues people care about this time really don't (see link below).

But it also applies within the primaries. Put simply, the GOP voters right now are very concerned about terrorism and security. They're just not going to go for a guy like Carson. He's 100% sunk and will drop out within the next few months as his polls continue to sag back into single digits. No one on the right wants the intellectual mumbler when there's scary brown sand-people to kill. I give Carson at best like 3% odds to win the nomination.

The race is a clear top 3 of Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. Cruz trying to eat into Trump support by claiming electability in the general (which is ironic cuz I actually think Trump would do better, which is saying something...) Rubio, even though he's hardly a moderate, meanwhile will be trying to gather support from the establishment.

Lindsey Graham will drop out soon due to frustration and will try to rally other establishment republicans to help support Rubio, unless Christie gains a big surge post-New Hampshire where he's expected to do well, in which case idk if they push Rubio yet or wait for Christie to fade again. Ideally for Rubio, Bush would drop out after New Hampshire when he'll finish somewhere 5th-7th, or 4th in an absolute best case scenario, despite having loads of money and focusing effort there. Kasich would ideally also drop out if he doesn't manage to finish 3rd in New Hampshire, or he may hold out until primaries come to Ohio in March just so he can have his ego trip. This is Rubio's path. He needs these sorts of people to drop out pretty early.

Except they won't. Not yet. Why? Well, all state primaries after March 15 are winner-take-all, while ones before then are proportional. So you can afford to lose a lot of early states because you still pick up delegates and your margin of defeat is very small compared to what the future margin of victory you can get to catch up. But by the time March rolls around, Rubio needs these people gone or he will get clobbered by Trump or Cruz. And he needs them gone with at least 3-4 weeks (ideally at least 6 weeks) lead time in the March 15 states, so he can ramp up outreach there to capture the new undecideds. Will Kasich drop out by then? Maybe not, as noted, since Ohio votes on March 15. How many states have voted by the time February 15, a month before the winner-take-all shift, has rolled around? 2. Just Iowa and New Hampshire.......... so yeah Rubio really, really needs some of the moderates to drop out post-NH. Otherwise, it will take far too long for him to catch up (though the back end states are typically blue and would typically favor a more establishment candidate in primaries... although Trump registers high support in a lot of these sorts of states so idk) and we'd be in a brokered convention. Rubio's only path to a clean victory is for the establishment to coalesce damn soon and hope it works.

 

[thesecondbest]

ive seen no evidence of this occuring ever

http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/
This isn't in colleges but Sanders wants it outside of colleges too so this is still valid
And when i did debate on the free community college topic, I remember a study that showed black students were insanely likely to drop out of community colleges and had much better success after going to HBUCs. If I find that I'll post it too. But yes there is evidence, and evidence is Sanders' worst enemy

 

[Shrug]

http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/
This isn't in colleges but Sanders wants it outside of colleges too so this is still valid
And when i did debate on the free community college topic, I remember a study that showed black students were insanely likely to drop out of community colleges and had much better success after going to HBUCs. If I find that I'll post it too. But yes there is evidence, and evidence is Sanders' worst enemy

u do understand i addressed the threshold idea right? so this would be an example of someone not meeting the requirements and yet still being accepted - which i said was bad. a better anology to affirmative action would be: she passes but w/ scores less high than other firefighters, but is still accepted because she has other qualities that makes her a valuable part of the firefighting community.

 

[DM]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bern...mocratic-national-committee/story?id=35857498

For anyone who has been following the story, it is know unambiguously clear that the DNC is simply going through the motions and letting Bernie think he has a chance at winning the nomination, while really just waiting to nominate Clinton anyway.

 

[boo836]

Hi, actual socialist (rev.libsoc) here.

Bernie Sanders isn't exactly well recieved by the socialist community. While he's obviously a better direction than the likes of Trump, Clinton, ect, we find a lot of his policies rather troubling. His hawkish stances (Iraq, Kosovo) and his open support of the ongoing Palestinian genocide imo are pretty horrendous. Furthermore, his lack of any plan concerning other hot topic issues (his recent Copblock interview was pathetic on so many counts) he differs on only goes to show that he's more of an opportunist like Clinton (albeit one that's more in touch). Not just an imperialist, but he's also not as invested in the issues he claims he is.

But the most contentious issue we tend to have is that Sanders has misappropriated the label of 'socialist' for himself. The term he wants is social democrat- someone who wants to reform capitalism rather than replacing it altogether. This makes him more like Robert Reich than Noam Chomsky, and consequently more appealing to the segment of the bourgeoisie that's grown disillusioned with the failures (read: fucking disasters) of neoliberal policy. A good example would be his "break up the banks" rhetoric, which from a socialist perspective doesn't exactly make sense. All breaking up the banks would do is expand the number of actors in the financial lobby, and only perpetuates the issues at hand. Think of them as bandaid solutions, except these bandsids are infected with herpes. For socialists, the answer is to either nationalize the banks (which given the existing system, I'm more in favour for) or completely convert them to cooperatives. Neither of which a President Sanders or any Dem would ever do.

I originally had a larger post, but the draft didn't fucking save. Tl;dr though, Sanders isn't going to change the world, he's just doing what he can to preserve the status quo. Change will only come when you stop hyping leaders, and instead begin holding them accountable.

 

[veiva]

boo836, you have an incredibly warped view of American society and government if you think Sanders would like to preserve the status quo. He is quite contrarion to every other presidential candidate running. The rejection of corporate donations and call for campaign finance reform essentially compromises the future every elected official... American politics are extremely conservative, compared to most other Western countries/governments, and while Sanders would be a moderate/liberal in the larger picture, he's essentially a radical/extremist liberal by American standards (which is incredibly frustrating, because by the American "Overtron" window I'd be labeled as some crazy liberal zealot).

I agree he's not socialist (though, at the end of the day, socialism is idealist and impossible in practice; it seems every economic/social/political policy forgets humans too often make incredibly disastrous decisions on individual, local, and global levels), or at least doesn't actively call for socialist ideas, but I don't see how that's a problem.

 

[boo836]

boo836, you have an incredibly warped view of American society and government if you think Sanders would like to preserve the status quo. He is quite contrarion to every other presidential candidate running. The rejection of corporate donations and call for campaign finance reform essentially compromises the future every elected official... American politics are extremely conservative, compared to most other Western countries/governments, and while Sanders would be a moderate/liberal in the larger picture, he's essentially a radical/extremist liberal by American standards (which is incredibly frustrating, because by the American "Overtron" window I'd be labeled as some crazy liberal zealot).

I agree he's not socialist (though, at the end of the day, socialism is idealist and impossible in practice; it seems every economic/social/political policy forgets humans too often make incredibly disastrous decisions on individual, local, and global levels), or at least doesn't actively call for socialist ideas, but I don't see how that's a problem.

I hope you don't mind me asking what planet you live on. American politics are not 'conservative' compared to the rest of the West, considering Canada's had Harper for almost a decade, Britain's had Blair and Cameron, Ireland's been stuck with the right wing for a while, France had Sarkozy (and arguably Hollande's more right wing than his party name suggests), and god knows that Japan, New Zealand and Australia (whatever, they're pretty similar to Western nations) have been dominated by reactionary, neoliberal politics.

Sanders absolutely does not want to change the status quo, at least as far as the larger picture is concerned. Fact of the matter is that he still backs an imperialist agenda, be it in Venezuela, Palestine, Kosovo or Yemen, and his "get big money out of politics" rhetoric isn't particularly convincing when he hasn't really elaborated on how he's going to take it all down. Dunno about you, but I've heard that schpeel before, and since Sanders doesn't want to replace capitalism, it's hard to imagine that his reforms will solve issues inherent to the capitalist system.

Lol@ 'socialism doesn't work in practice'. Last time i checked, the rural communes of Spain had it going pretty well for themselves until the fascists took over. The Soviet Union and Cuba aren't winning any awards on ethical practices, but you'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant to suggest that they weren't going pretty strong until the Cold War. Even then, you're making sweeping generalizations about an umbrella term, and it doesn't change that for every economic failure of socialism, i could list dozens for capitalistic systems. So please, don't use that lazy argument.

 

[tehy]

Lol@ 'socialism doesn't work in practice'. Last time i checked, the rural communes of Spain had it going pretty well for themselves until the fascists took over. The Soviet Union and Cuba aren't winning any awards on ethical practices, but you'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant to suggest that they weren't going pretty strong until the Cold War. Even then, you're making sweeping generalizations about an umbrella term, and it doesn't change that for every economic failure of socialism, i could list dozens for capitalistic systems. So please, don't use that lazy argument.

communes can make socialism work, because social responsibility replaces the incentive of cold hard cash. that doesn't really work in cities for the most part.

soviet union fell apart because it was billions in debt, not because of any uprising. if you're arguing that suppressing the people causes the economy to go bad...tell it to China, whose economy is currently off the charts despite them implementing Yelp for people.

could you really list dozens, though? And most importantly, i'll bet you that socialism fails more often. It's just that everyone uses capitalism, because duh.

(s/o venezuela)