It’s time to balance the power between workers and employers

Post by alphaalpha101 » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 7:17 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #34

> The central issue in American politics is the economic security of the middle class and their sense of opportunity for their children. Maybe for Mr. Summers, it is. And maybe as well, for liberals generally. But there are at least a couple problems. First, many Americans are apparently convinced that some other issue is central in American politics. Maybe it's threats from foreigners. Or from Satan, or some proxy o…

Post by alphaalpha101 » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 7:20 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #66

Animats wrote: post #49

Union, Yes. The US has weak unions because labor law enforcement is so weak. No administration has done much about that in decades. 11% of US employees belong to a union. 32% in Canada. Read "Confessions of a Union Buster" for background. In theory, whether to organize a union in the US is entirely up to the workers. The employer has no say in the matter. Few people even know that. Employers try hard to maintain that…

Let's not forget that unions can also become detrimental to employees' working environment. In France unions are very powerful and unionists when going on strike, prevent non-unionists from working, and retaliate against folks who do not agree with their agenda - this goes against individual employee freedom and becomes another form of coercion. And unionists, no matter how piss poor a job they do, can never be fired…

Post by icelancer » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 7:23 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #80

icelancer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>But there are at least a couple problems. First, many Americans are apparently convinced that some other issue is central in American politics. Maybe it's threats from foreigners. Or from Satan, or some proxy of his. Or perhaps, it's losing their guns. Or whatever. This is very much by design. The state and controlling money interests are happy if people are complaining about guns, weed, LGBT rights, neo-Nazi march…

The conversation in threads never goes beyond this point. Yes, this is by design - and crickets (usually). Even if it were by design, how can it be countered or worked around.

Post by alphaalpha101 » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 7:24 AM UTC

pfisch wrote: post #60

ergothus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why would anyone ever offer a student loan under these conditions? Are you saying that it's not possible to offer profitable rates on student loans that could be forgiven in bankruptcy like other debts are? If so, how is that not saying the same thing as "to fund the education of the successful requires perpetual funding from the unsuccessful"?

I'm saying why would you extend a massive loan to someone who is broke, has no credit, and can immediately discharge the debt. They could and many of them would immediately discharge the entire balance of the loan upon graduation by declaring bankruptcy. They don't offer 40k+ loans to people with no credit at any rate.

Post by Brotkrumen » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 7:39 AM UTC

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #69

ianai wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how I perceived your comment. You took the statement and came up with another statement and claimed it was a logical extension of the first. But it was not faithful to the original statement. Nor was that my only point. You essentially found a logical exploit and dumped the rest of my meaning. That's violent.

Well, there are "reductio ad absurdum" arguments - which attempt to show that an argument is bad because it leads to absurd conclusions. And as its fancy latin name suggests, its as old as the ages, and is often a reasonable form of argument.