While I didn't catch the Republican debate live, I listened to it on YouTube at work yesterday. And of course, being both liberal and atheist, there are many comments I could make.
But what really struck me was at least two of the candidates (I know Mit was one of them...as I said, I was listening, not watching) expressed their desire to strength families or that they were pro family.
My question is, how is anything to do about family the president's job? Am I crazy, or shouldn't the job of making strong families be up to the families, not the government?
Or were those comments just meant to be against gay marriage and too subtle for me to catch it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My question is, how is anything to do about family the president's job? Am I crazy, or shouldn't the job of making strong families be up to the families, not the government?
In a vaccuum, I agree, to make or not make a strong family should be up to the families.
We don't live in a vaccuum.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Saying he's pro family implies that others aren't. And if the competition does not say they are pro-family, they might be in trouble, since that is akin to saying that they hate puppies, and are Pro-abortion (As opposed to being pro-choice. One is creepy, the other makes sense)
That could be it... Maybe he's implying that he himself has a strong family, thus making him a better candidate.
Maybe he's trying to make an entirely new issue, so now fundementalist Christianity has to be not only anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-life, but they have to be pro-family too.
If that's the case, it's rather feeble. Who is going to say that they are 'anti-family'?
But what defines a family. There's where there can be contesting in the political arena. Is gay marriage *really* a marriage? Can they adopt a child and be a 'family'? But, don't you remember in 'Over the Hedge', friends can be family. And, Ohana means family (Different movie, sorry). So, maybe while conservatives believe that family is a working dad, a stay-at-home mom, and four boisterous children, liberals believe that a family is like the cast of Friends.
I guess I have to say that none of the views reflect what I believe. It's all going towards speculation. I think it's rather silly to be 'pro-family'. Just as silly to be against it. Or maybe, we can support the child's right to choose which family he or she wants to live with.
I'll stop. I'm not being funny, just annoying. Sorry... Sort of.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006:
Maybe he's trying to make an entirely new issue, so now fundementalist Christianity has to be not only anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-life, but they have to be pro-family too.
Umm . . . it's not new. "Pro-family" has been a political catch-phrase for years.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Who is going to say that they are 'anti-family'?
Who is going to say that they are anti-life?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Or anti-choice?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Mmmm... Semantics.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
It isn't like the thing with abortion where people say "choice" and "life" rather than abortion, as a euphemism. "Pro-family" is a euphemism for nothing. It helps us feel good about the candidate without telling us anything about him.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I always interpret "pro-family" as "anti gay family".
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Politicians were saying they supported "working families" before gay marriage was an issue, FWIW.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Speaking of pro-family, anybody else get the sense that Tagg Romney is a douche bag?
Edit: Admittedly, I do like Taggert as a name. I was a fan of Chris Heinz, the legitimately funny Gore daughter and the whole Edwards clan, and even Barbara Bush radiates a respectable matron authority-- even when she unloads on poor people-- but as of today, Tagg Romney screams douche bag.
[ May 05, 2007, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's the equivalent of photo-op with children. It conveys fatherliness, caring, a softer side, caring about the "average American" in a traditional way.
Specifically, I think it's gained a new meaning, one of being for the family unit and against anything that is percieved to be against that: gay marriage, abortion, atheism, pre-marital and extra-marital relations, violence and sex in movies and video games, any form of drug use...
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Hmm. In Finland being pro-family means trying to ensure governmental benefits for people with young children, trying to stop those same people from falling through holes in the social security net and trying to keep them employed, and also working against domestic abuse and alcoholism. (Sometimes it also means working against violent entertainment.) It feels strange that in America it'd be immediately associated with completely non-family-related things such as premarital sex, atheism or gays.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hnn If they were REALLY pro-family they'd do more to help the family than just say, Oh, yes, we want to protect you from the REAL evil in the world.
I think they should concentrate on reforming the foster care system.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006:
Maybe he's trying to make an entirely new issue, so now fundementalist Christianity has to be not only anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-life, but they have to be pro-family too.
Umm . . . it's not new. "Pro-family" has been a political catch-phrase for years.
And he's trying to bring it up to an entirely different level! Well, I won't stand for it. From now on, I'm pro-single.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: I think they should concentrate on reforming the foster care system.
Maybe, but I think that helping Unions get a better foothold in the private sector would do wonders for working families.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:... completely non-family-related things such as premarital sex, atheism or gays.
How are issues of sex "non-family-related"? You would think that, for instance, pre-marital sex, one of the leading contributors to single parenthood, might be related to families. Right?
And who brought atheism into this? You're right that it's not directly family-related, but I didn't think anyone was claiming that it was.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Politicians were saying they supported "working families" before gay marriage was an issue, FWIW.
But "working family" is kinda an euphemism for "blue collar." Politicians who say they support working families are usually trying to appeal to the "common man" and distance themselves from the candidates that come from wealthy families and "have never had to work a day in their life." Although it's expanded a bit from blue collar to cover referring to most of the middle class, I think.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Still, Qaz's point stands. Promoting "family values" was a huge part of the Republican strategy in the 1988 election, for instance, LONG before gay marriage was even on most people's radar as a possibility.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My question is, how is anything to do about family the president's job?
There are many social issues which many people feel the government should be involved in, including poverty, health care, standard of living, health and safety, drugs, and families.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Family Values is a great code phrase.
To those who do not believe in Homosexual Marriage, those who proclaim "Family Values" believes it means no gay marriage.
However, it does not say that, and if asked, the proclaimer of Family Values can say "I didn't say anything about gay marriage."
However, it was a phrase used long before the Gay Marriage movement and the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement ever bumped uglies.
"Murphy Brown" had a wonderful episode where Dan Quayle attacked Murphy Brown for Family Values issues, in this case the value was single motherhood.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I find it amazing how anti-families society is (maternity leave, responses to flex time, etc), yet everyone is always shouting about their pro-family values.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: You would think that, for instance, pre-marital sex, one of the leading contributors to single parenthood, might be related to families. Right?
Being against pre-marital sex is fine, but again, should it matter how the president feels about it? I mean, if they want his opinion, fine...but I don't think there's going to be a bill outlawing pre-marital sex coming up any time soon. At least, I hope not.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Family Values is a great code phrase.
To those who do not believe in Homosexual Marriage, those who proclaim "Family Values" believes it means no gay marriage.
However, it does not say that, and if asked, the proclaimer of Family Values can say "I didn't say anything about gay marriage."
However, it was a phrase used long before the Gay Marriage movement and the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement ever bumped uglies.
"Murphy Brown" had a wonderful episode where Dan Quayle attacked Murphy Brown for Family Values issues, in this case the value was single motherhood.
I like a phrase I learned in the 2006 campaign, "dog-whistle politics" for this phenomenon. To me the subtext of "family values" seems to be "2 parent families with 2.4 kids are great, anything else is just wrong". More recently it's become synonymous with anti-gay marriage.
Anti-immigration rabble-rousing is an even better example of dog-whistle politics. For many pols, anti-immigration slogans mask underlying racism. Not for all, hopefully not even most, but definitely for some politicians it is a thin veneer.
Snail, the phrase "family values" has been effectively used by the right for decades, so here it is saturated in conservative context. According to wiki, some American leftists have tried to redefine "family values" along the lines of the Finnish views you cite, but with little success.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: How are issues of sex "non-family-related"? You would think that, for instance, pre-marital sex, one of the leading contributors to single parenthood, might be related to families. Right?
I actually really wonder how you could measure that. Still, I'd say what would contribute to single parenthood in such cases would be irresponsible sex, and not all pre-marital sex is irresponsible.
For example, my aunt and her boyfriend have two lovely children and a house together, but they're not married. Is this a problem? Would theirs be somehow more of a family if they were married? Those of my friends who are having pre-marital sex yet don't want children use protection. Most of those of my friends who are my age (I'm 22) and do have children are not married, though most of them also plan to marry in the future. So their children don't hava a family yet? How would having a child from pre-marital sex automatically indicate that someone's going to become a single parent? How is responsible pre-marital sex in any way a problem? The only single parent I know is a single parent because she divorced.
Quite honestly, I don't see why non-religious people would get married at all. (Well, I suppose there are some legal benefits that a married couple would have as opposed to a simple living-together couple, though not that many anymore.)
quote:Snail, the phrase "family values" has been effectively used by the right for decades, so here it is saturated in conservative context. According to wiki, some American leftists have tried to redefine "family values" along the lines of the Finnish views you cite, but with little success.
That's interesting.
There are religious conservatives in Finland, though they're a minority party. (They have seven members in the current parliament, if I recall correctly, the parliament having 200 members in total.) And to them being pro-family does seem to also mean being against gay adoption and things like that. But even if you asked the leader of the Christian conservative party here what she thought the biggest threat to family was in Finland, she'd say low income for the parents and domestic abuse and stuff like that. The gay thing would be more of an afterthought (still a troubling one, of course).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Who is going to say that they are anti-life?
Alright, I'll come forward. I am anti-life.
Well, not really. I like being alive. I even like most living things.
But, politically, I support the death penalty, and I support legal abortion. Ergo, I am anti-life. Actually, I think you guys are right. Anti-life sounds bad semantically. Nobody would agree to that title.
Hey, I know! I'm pro-death!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"Murphy Brown" had a wonderful episode where Dan Quayle attacked Murphy Brown for Family Values issues, in this case the value was single motherhood.
That's not exactly accurate, at least not if I recall correctly. The "value" there was whether "choosing to be a single mother" is just another lifestyle choice that should be held as a valid goal by our society and not single motherhood by itself.
People beat Dan Quayle up for this one; I pretty much agree with him on it. It's not just a lifestyle choice. It's not just (or even primarily) about you, but rather about the child. It is entirely possible to raise a healthy child as a single mother, especially given an extensive support network, but the way it was being treated, from my recollection, there was little if any focus on the problems associated with raising a child in a single parent household where that parent has a job that demands a whole mess of attention.
I'm not saying, and neither did Dan Quayle, that we should censor this sort of thing, but I think pointing out that it is selfish and unrealistic should be done.
---
On the wider issue, I really wish people who claim to be "pro-family" acted like the term meant anything like what I take it to be. But, I'm not holding my breath. To me, that'd be sort of like expecting most Christians to act Christ-like.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm prepared to vote for the candidate who mentions family the LEAST. It's too much to hope that none will mention it all. I don't mind being persuaded, but I feel like the constant appeal to traditional family values that the candidates engage in is base manipulation.
quote:I think that helping Unions get a better foothold in the private sector would do wonders for working families.
Why? As liberal as I am concerning employment and the economy, I don't see unions as particularly effective (or non-corrupt) organizations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In case anyone else in having the same ideas I am having...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that helping Unions get a better foothold in the private sector would do wonders for working families. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? As liberal as I am concerning employment and the economy, I don't see unions as particularly effective (or non-corrupt) organizations.
When manufacturing jobs went overseas, the minimally skilled/unconnected class went from working class houseowners to working poor. Instead of steel and auto workers, they work at walmart or became security guards, at a fraction of the pay and benefits. Maybe it's just black families, but one of the largest strains on working families that I see is that they are working poor. You don't have to have a bachelor's to become an electrician, building engineer, or anyone of the strongly unionized white private sector minimally skilled jobs that still pay well.
Raising the minimum wage is a blunt instrument to stem the tide of working poor in this country. If, instead of raising the minimum wage, we focused on getting in and strengthening Unions in the right industries, we wouldn't have to raise the minimum wage to assist the working poor. If you want to be "pro-family," get rid of the working poor.
[ May 06, 2007, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Raising the minimum wage is a blunt instrument to stem the tide of working poor in this country.
Except that it won't. I'd be much more supportive of free daycare centers maintained with tax dollars than I am of the minimum wage.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I know it won't.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Quite honestly, I don't see why non-religious people would get married at all. (Well, I suppose there are some legal benefits that a married couple would have as opposed to a simple living-together couple, though not that many anymore.)
I used to think this way, but I've changed my mind. I think there is a large difference between private and public commitments. Everything changes constantly and when something is between two people only, when those two people both change their mind over time, it doesn't necessarily feel like you're breaking a commitment. It feels more like circumstances changed and what you said to each other back then came from a time and place that no longer exists. Promises to stay together forever feel more like pillow talk than a concrete commitment.
Yes, marraiges can fall apart as well. But I think on average, it's harder to break off a marraige than it is a long term, serious relationship that both parties intended to last forever. Making the promise to your friends, family, society in general, and the government does make a difference.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Squick. I loved Murphy Brown, but the whole pregnancy arc made me throw things at the screen. And then her perpetual painter just happened to be willing to act as a nanny.
Far from the most unrealistic thing that ever happened on that show. But definitely way up there.
Being a single mom is really, really hard. And that was really not given much attention on Murphy -- it was in fact downplayed to a ridiculous extent.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I was an immature Dan-Quayle-hating-Murphy-Brown-loving teenager at the time, and I still thought her single motherhood seemed kinda unrealistic.
I didn't mind that he took so much flak for it, though. Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:I think there is a large difference between private and public commitments. Everything changes constantly and when something is between two people only, when those two people both change their mind over time, it doesn't necessarily feel like you're breaking a commitment.
I disagree.
Take my aunt and her boyfriend again. As said they have a house and a two children together but they're not married. If either of them walked away right now, do you think there wouldn't be a public backlash against the one walking away from family and friends? People would be treating it just as they would be treating it were it an actual divorce. I'd say they pretty much made that public commitment when they build the house and decided to have a child together.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: I was an immature Dan-Quayle-hating-Murphy-Brown-loving teenager at the time, and I still thought her single motherhood seemed kinda unrealistic.
I didn't mind that he took so much flak for it, though.
Ditto. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It may have been unrealistic, but it wasn't what Quayle tried to spin it as. He criticized the show (without ever having seen an episode, he later admitted) as an example of single women intentionally choosing to have children with no partner. What actually happened on the show is that Murphy and her ex-husband decided to reconcile and then he changed his mind and left the country. She then found out she was pregnant and agonized over the decision of what to do about it, finally deciding to keep the baby.
He should have been applauding her decision not to abort, instead of holding her up as an anti-family values example.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Murphy Brown (the character was right): if you are fabulously wealthy and can afford to pay a house painter to watch your kid full time, you really can have it all, married or not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
dkw, you are oversimplifying the scenario that led up to the pregnancy. Among other things, Murphy later admitted that she deliberately chose not to use birth control. (Consciously because she figured she'd be unlikely to get pregnant; subconsciously because she thought this might be her last chance to do so.)
quote:He should have been applauding her decision not to abort, instead of holding her up as an anti-family values example.
I agree with that. And it's part of why I had (and have) no problem with Quayle getting flak.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think politicians who rant and rave about family values understand that the things they rant and rave about are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! Yes, they may object to abortion, I do to a certain extent, they may be against divorce, every situation is complicated, but it's still none of their business. It's still people's private lives and regardless of their decisions, they cannot win. If a woman gets an abortion, peopel will look down on her, if a person makes an adoption plan, they will recieve judgement, if they choose to parent singly, again, judgement. Instead of them taking the time to read out speeches about society and values deteriorating, why not actually do something to help people and make things better for them? Judging will not help, it will only frustrate a person and make their lives worse. Divorce, abortion and most of the things they gripe about will not go away, so why not do something about the conditions and really be aware of what the real problem is? It's so easy to rant and rave about homosexuality and divorce and things like that as they are sensitive political issues that get people rabbling and running to the polls to vote for or against something that REALLY ISN'T THE REAL PROBLEM MESSING UP THIS COUNTRY FOR AGES! It's all a game, like men using a line on a woman to get her to sleep with him! I cannot offer a solution other than focusing on things that are REALLY important, like realizing the effects of abuse on children and, once again, doing something to reform the systems that are in place to help children.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:If either of them walked away right now, do you think there wouldn't be a public backlash against the one walking away from family and friends? People would be treating it just as they would be treating it were it an actual divorce. I'd say they pretty much made that public commitment when they build the house and decided to have a child together.
I can accept the argument that building a house and having a child together is a form of public commitment. I don't think that negates the value of a public ceremoney in which you specifically commit to stay with a person till death parts you. I'm not saying people's relationships mean nothing without doing so. But I think it has value beyond a religious framework.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: I don't think that negates the value of a public ceremoney in which you specifically commit to stay with a person till death parts you.
Well, I disagree. I'm not sure, for example, how a quick marriage done in a spur-of-the-moment at the magistrate in front of a few complete strangers is automatically more "committed" than what my aunt has. But I guess it's a matter of opinion in the end - we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: is automatically more "committed"
Well, I never said that. I said on average, I think marriage is more committed than lack of marriage. I think that's pretty straight forward since in one you explicitly commit to stay with somebody and in the other it's more implicit. I'm sure there are tons and tons of exceptions going both ways with people like your aunt being extremely committed without marriage and people like Brittney Spears being extremely not committed with marriage.
I feel a little bit like we're talking past each other. The real thing I was trying to argue was why non-religious people might want to get married. I'm not religious and eventually, I would like to get married for the reasons I already stated. I think there are emotional as well as pragmatic benefits to a ceremony. If you see no value in marriage, that's cool. Just trying to explain one point of perspective you said you didn't get. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Speaking of pro-family, anybody else get the sense that Tagg Romney is a douche bag?
I know the discussion has moved on significantly, and I probably shouldn't bring this back up at all, but I thought that comment was completely out of line, Irami.
From what I know of Tagg he is a kind and loving father and a good man.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:When manufacturing jobs went overseas, the minimally skilled/unconnected class went from working class houseowners to working poor. Instead of steel and auto workers, they work at walmart or became security guards, at a fraction of the pay and benefits.
quote:If, instead of raising the minimum wage, we focused on getting in and strengthening Unions in the right industries, we wouldn't have to raise the minimum wage to assist the working poor.
Weren't these industries unionized when their jobs went overseas?
What would you implement to strengthen unions? Which industries would you unionize?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I'm not sure, for example, how a quick marriage done in a spur-of-the-moment at the magistrate in front of a few complete strangers is automatically more "committed" than what my aunt has.
Are those the only two options? What about a non-religious ceremony with family and friends in attendance to witness you making a commitment with a loved one and afterwards getting sloshed to celebrate?
Nobodies criticizing your aunt, but just because she doesn't need/want a ceremony, doesn't mean that there can be no value in them for others. I can definitely see a great deal of value in having a wedding, completely outside of religious necessities, but that doesn't mean I believe that without a wedding there can be no family. Also, I think the term "wedding" here can get pretty loose: from courthouse to chapel to a couple in the woods holding hands and staring fondly into each others eyes.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: I feel a little bit like we're talking past each other. The real thing I was trying to argue was why non-religious people might want to get married. I'm not religious and eventually, I would like to get married for the reasons I already stated. I think there are emotional as well as pragmatic benefits to a ceremony. If you see no value in marriage, that's cool. Just trying to explain one point of perspective you said you didn't get.
quote:Nobodies criticizing your aunt, but just because she doesn't need/want a ceremony, doesn't mean that there can be no value in them for others. I can definitely see a great deal of value in having a wedding, completely outside of religious necessities, but that doesn't mean I believe that without a wedding there can be no family. Also, I think the term "wedding" here can get pretty loose: from courthouse to chapel to a couple in the woods holding hands and staring fondly into each others eyes.
All right. I get what you're saying now. And you're right Amanecer, we were talking past each other a bit. I'm certainly not saying that non-religious people shouldn't get married or that marriage can have no value at all for individual people. And I don't think you were saying that non-married relationships are not committed or not worthy. You're right too, vonk, in that the need for such things varies in each individual situation. Who's to go and tell people which is the right way for them to build their relationship?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: From what I know of Tagg he is a kind and loving father and a good man.
And yet, I look at this clip and I think "douche." What are you going to do? ________________
Scott, they were unionized before, when they were sent overseas. Firmly entitled working-class white guys organize into Unions, and often with help from their more learned brethern. People whose status in this nation is a bit more precarious are scared. The union movement is in trouble in both ways, from the anti-union employer above to the scared immigrant or minority labor below. I imagine the dynamic was similar to pre-FDR America. There is so much varied financial instability among service workers that there needs to be some sort of cultural change in favor of unionizing private enterprise.
I've also seen that companies treat their direct employees well, but use a third party vendor as a morally and administrative buffer for services like security, maintenaince, and catering. Outsourcing was seen as a way to save time and effort, but when the parent company is seeking a contract, they don't want to know the messy details about how the vendor keeps it's bottom line low. For example, students at Harvard University were in the paper in a hunger strike recently not for how Harvard treats its employees, but how its newly outsourced security provider, Allied Barton, treats the employees.
This outsourcing is only bad when it serves as a loop hole for parent employers to get around providing reasonable wages and health benefits for their full-time employees.
And then there are industries where Unions were never established, gardening, housekeeping, etc, the Union would guarantee healthcare and pensions which, in the long term, will save tax dollars and increase the quality of life for the working poor. I know that there is a segment who will say that these industries have an elastic demand, but I think we underestimate how much Americans can't be bothered with cleaning house or mowing lawns. It's kind of like making shoes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure, because why have a reasoned political discussion when you can resort to crude ad hominems.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And yet, I look at this clip and I think "douche." What are you going to do?
I don't know about you, but I'm capable of thinking things that I don't say.
quote:I know that there is a segment who will say that these industries have an elastic demand, but I think we underestimate how much Americans can't be bothered with cleaning house or mowing lawns.
Anecdotal demonstration of elastic demand: right now, housecleaning and lawn care services are priced above my comfort zone. If costs dropped another 20%, I would probably take advantage of each.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Firmly entitled working-class white guys organize into Unions...
Saying this calls basically everything else you've said about unions into question. The kinds of people who started unions in America definitely weren't "firmly entitled".
As for why Irami would use a crude ad hominem attack, well, at this point that question is like asking why a dog urinates on a fire hydrant.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't know about you, but I'm capable of thinking things that I don't say.
If he were just a son, I won't even care, but he is a "senior press advisor" getting the exposure and doing the talk show circuit of a family values candidate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Irami, As is common with you, what you said was childish and inappropriate no matter who it was said about. It was what you said itself and not necessarily the target of it that made it something not worthy of Hatrack.
Your behavior on Hatrack makes it very difficult for me to take you seriously when you talk about character. It appears to me that either you don't understand the term in a way at all similar to how I do or you don't think that you yourself should aspire to demonstrating a high character.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote: From what I know of Tagg he is a kind and loving father and a good man.
And yet, I look at this clip and I think "douche." What are you going to do?
Why? I mean honestly? I preserve the crude comparisons for people that do things I find insulting, degrading or offensive. The most I can say about Tagg's performance in your linked clip was that it wasn't particularly polished.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami is deeply allergic to smarm.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Irami, I'm with SenojRetep. I would like to know what specifically Tagg said that seems so douchy. I saw nothing in that clip that made me think "douche". It was a pretty bland clip.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Irami, I was hoping you had an actual plan.
Who are the working poor?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Err...yeah. I don't understand your venom against Tag Romney.
I'm not even sure what's smarmy about his presentation. It's true-- I too love to spend time with my kids, and my parents, and my brothers' families, and my wife's siblings' families.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Scott,
Even strengthening unions isn't going to eliminate working poverty, but it is an effective check. You can call it a surgical strike against a wide-spread social disease.
quote:Who are the working poor?
If you work full-time, yet still qualify for food stamps, you are the working poor. If you work full-time for a Fortune 500 company, yet still qualify for food stamps, there is something systemically wrong, and that's where we have problems with companies like Walmart or Allied Barton, but for complicated reasons politicans are scared to take these firms to task. Walmart because they offer the customer the lowest price, and Allied because they offer the client the lowest proposal, both crowding out their competition. That these low prices come at the expense of American workers, whose options have been cut short because of the enormous size and sway of these larger firms, is a federal issue.
What's worse is that everyone can say they are "doing their job." The Parent company operations officials say that they awarded the contract to the company with the lowest bid. Walmart and Allied can say they are providing jobs and paying taxes.
The "actual plan" that you are looking for is to raise expectations such that companies who outsource work make sure those vendors treat the employees at a level commensurate with how the parent company's employees are treated. This will end all of the tacet poor working conditions subsidized by 501c3s like Harvard. I'm sure there is a city ordinance one can write which guarantees that vendors must offer compensation equal to that of the parent company, and that's a debate I'd love to see. This would be the case in which both the Senator and the Capital Hill's full-time maintenance staff have equal access to healthcare. It's awful to see industries that trade on good will and public trust, like museums, award security, maintenance, and catering contracts to vendors who don't treat their employees at a level that would not bear public scrutiny.
[ May 07, 2007, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm pro-family. I support the troops. I'm a real patriot. I'm strong on terror. I'm a uniter. I'm the common man's candidate. I am for ending hunger. I am the right man for the job. I'm pro-business. I'm pro-small business. I'm pro-education. I'm for promoting the public welfare.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That these low prices come at the expense of American workers, whose options have been cut short because of the enormous size and sway of these larger firms, is an federal issue.
I don't quite get this. Are you suggesting that these workers would be employed anyway, and are simply making less than they would be making without these firms?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Are you suggesting that these workers would be employed anyway, and are simply making less than they would be making without these firms?
Yes, especially in industries like security, catering, and maintenance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. I disagree. Quite strongly, in fact. In those situations in which demand is less elastic, I think you'd wind up seeing a lot more illegal labor.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Well, this assumes that we take a serious stand against illegal labor.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Taking a serious stand against illegal labor is going to lead to significantly higher prices for many types of food (among other things), which is going to increase the burden on the working poor.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Is it better to get higher wages if it causes prices to rise so those wages actually buy you less?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Taking a serious stand against illegal labor is going to lead to significantly higher prices for many types of food (among other things), which is going to increase the burden on the working poor. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 6441 | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged |
Tresopax Member Member # 1063
posted May 08, 2007 09:41 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it better to get higher wages if it causes prices to rise so those wages actually buy you less?
In the food industry. We are talking about matters of scale. We don't know how much members of whichever grocery store are profitting, and where the cuts would have to be.
But take house cleaning, landscaping, or security, it's not as if an increase in those costs to round out the wages of the gardeners or cleaners or security officers is going to affect whether the gardeners or cleaners or security officers can afford to have gardeners or cleaners or private security. However, it may lift these full-time workers off of dole or create disposable income that can be put towards homeownership, healthcare, or music lessons for their kids.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not all employers of gardeners, housecleaners, or security guards are Scrooge McDuck who are unaffected by the prices of services. Many are private middle-class who are indeed sensitive to price and will, if the price goes up, choose another way (electronic security systems, illegal immigrant labor) or cut back on the hours.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But take house cleaning, landscaping, or security, it's not as if an increase in those costs to round out the wages of the gardeners or cleaners or security officers is going to affect whether the gardeners or cleaners or security officers can afford to have gardeners or cleaners or private security. However, it may lift these full-time workers off of dole or create disposable income that can be put towards homeownership, healthcare, or music lessons for their kids.
If, somehow, wages and benefits offered to house keepers, landscapers, and security workers were raised, quickly their services would be less frequently purchased, don't you agree, Irami?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it's not as if an increase in those costs to round out the wages of the gardeners or cleaners or security officers is going to affect whether the gardeners or cleaners or security officers can afford to have gardeners or cleaners or private security
Why wouldn't it? As I've said, I would pay to have my lawn mowed and my house cleaned if the going rate were about 20% cheaper.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many thought similar things when they imposed a high tax on yachts. Suddenly, rich people bought fewer yachts, and the result was significantly lower revenue than anticipated and the loss of a moderate number of jobs.
People respond to incentives. Anytime you change the incentives, the behavior of people will change, the only question is how much. Assuming changes in behavior will be small is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I agree that the demand is not perfectly rigid, but the union model seems to work for historically white trades, trucking, carpentry, firefighting, stagehands, plumbing, and for a while, manufacturing, and for a stretch and even until today, there are a lot of people who are raised from being working poor not by mere demand alone, but with demand and the aid of a strong union.
I get the sense that this debate redounds to the question of whether we'd rather create 100 full-time jobs and pay them poorly, or create 65 full-time jobs and pay them well. I opt for the latter.
Fugu, are you really comparing gardening to yachts?
[ May 08, 2007, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I agree that the demand is not perfectly rigid, but the union model seems to work for historically white trades, trucking, carpentry, firefighting, stagehands, plumbing, and for a while, manufacturing, and for a stretch and even until today, there are a lot of people who are raised from being working poor not by mere demand alone, but with demand and the aide of a strong union.
Well, at least you've dropped your "firmly entitled" nonsense argument from the picture. Now it's just, as everything is with you, a question of race. Which is in my opinion ridiculous. You can't compare modern landscapers with past steel workers or textile workers. There was an unmitigated need for their services, not just an economic demand.
Take a look at manufacturing, and you'll see something of an example of a strong union pricing domestic industry right off the top of the market.
quote:I get the sense that this debate redounds to the question of whether we'd rather create 100 full-time jobs and pay them poorly, or create 65 full-time jobs and pay them well. I opt for the latter.
You can't create the kinds of jobs you're talking about. There must first be a demand for them. Competition for things like landscaping is fierce. A friend of mine at work routinely speaks about stress he's having, keeping his costs low in order to appeal to future customers and keep his current customers. We're talking price differences of as little as $10 on a monthly basis here too.
How exactly you come up with a mere %35 figure here in terms of wages and benefits, too, I don't know exactly. Seems incredibly conservative to me. Do you even know how much landscapers make, or are you just speaking from a different orifice again?
quote:Fugu, are you really comparing gardening to yachts?
If he's not, I am. Exactly like yatchs, hiring someone to come to your home with a bunch of expensive lawn-care hardware and cut your grass, trim your hedges, whack your weeds, etc. etc. is a luxury, just like yachts. Unlike yachts, it's pretty affordable to many people right now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I get the sense that this debate redounds to the question of whether we'd rather create 100 full-time jobs and pay them poorly, or create 65 full-time jobs and pay them well. I opt for the latter.
Even granting your numbers, what do you suggest that the other 35 people do?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
TomD, go on well paid welfare.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Even granting your numbers, what do you suggest that the other 35 people do?
We don't let them into the country to begin with.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So...the manufacturer builds the plant in Mexico instead of Ohio because they need to be able to compete with China and it is cheaper to build across the border where those 35 people are.
Not only has Ohio lost the taxes from the plant(and Ohioans lost the services those taxes provided), it has lost all the jobs that go with it, including the building and grounds that those 65 were maintaining.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Manufacturing is a different animal, but unless you can find a way to ship catering, maintenance, landscaping, house cleaning, and security to Mexico, I stand by my argument.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Immigrants are not only employed in service industries. Closing the borders to keep out the competition for service jobs will also close the borders to those who work in manufacturing jobs.
Unless you want to segregate the service jobs: "The high-paying jobs are for native-born Americans. Immigrants can only work in manufacturing jobs." That's already been tried, remember? The terrible injustice of it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami, your path requires an ever-widening network of laws and regulations intended to force people to offer only those services which are "optimal," for a given value of "optimal," and to pay for them prices which are "fair." It would require heavy tariffs and other protectionist measures, massive regulation of service industry, and enforced borders, and would probably require that we ultimately ban international outsourcing.
And at the end of the day, I'm not seeing the benefit. What's the "dignity" in being paid a living wage to tend someone's garden if that "dignity" is preserved only through the forced largesse of law? It turns laborers into quaint zoo creatures, unable to survive in the wild; they would be literally patronized.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Manufacturing is a different animal, but unless you can find a way to ship catering, maintenance, landscaping, house cleaning, and security to Mexico, I stand by my argument.
So, you're acknowledging that your plan to defuse working poverty totally fails in respect to manufacturing jobs.
Also, you continue to fail to address the objection that if you raise prices for those services as substantially as you're talking about, demand for those services will diminish.
Of the areas you've mentioned, only security comes close to being a need rather than a luxury. Money-grubbing dollar-worshipping white people are likely to just mow their own lawns and whack their own weeds when it costs them at least double what it does currently to pay for it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Closing the borders to keep out the competition for service jobs will also close the borders to those who work in manufacturing jobs.
Unless you want to segregate the service jobs: "The high-paying jobs are for native-born Americans. Immigrants can only work in manufacturing jobs." That's already been tried, remember? The terrible injustice of it?
I could live with this.
Of course, if it's true that manufacturing jobs will always maintain working poverty in America, the next big puzzle would be figuring out if it were such a bad thing to ship that labor across national borders. If you work in America, you should earn enough to live above American poverty.
quote:What's the "dignity" in being paid a living wage to tend someone's garden if that "dignity" is preserved only through the forced largesse of law?
If I were a gardener, I wouldn't really care why my employer paid me. It's a tacet assumption that the employers are only going to pay these service jobs as much as they can get away with, so whether it's the law or the union that swells the worker's paycheck and guarantees healthcare, I can live with it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your plan is impractical, rascist, and doomed to failure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami, American poverty is a moving target. By definition, American "poverty" will exist as long as some people make more money than other people.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
We've also defined poverty in this country over the years in such a way that currently you can have a roof over your head, food on the table, multiple televisions, a cell phone, automobile(s), get a public college education, etc and still be considered to live at the poverty line.
Where do you think the line should be drawn so that people can live above it?
Edit: As usual, Tom put it far more concisely than I could have (and beat me to it).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If I were a gardener, I wouldn't really care why my employer paid me. It's a tacet assumption that the employers are only going to pay these service jobs as much as they can get away with, so whether it's the law or the union that swells the worker's paycheck and guarantees healthcare, I can live with it.
So what happens when not just is the client not willing to pay more for a service, but not willing to buy that service period, Irami? As would assuredly happen if you started doubling (or more, your figure of 35% is ridiculous) prices?
The worker only has a paycheck, meager or substantial, if the worker has a job. Are you going to force people to purchase catering, landscaping, and security services?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Your plan is impractical, rascist, and doomed to failure.
It'll put employers like your father in an uncomfortable pickle.
quote:Irami, American poverty is a moving target. By definition, American "poverty" will exist as long as some people make more money than other people.
Tom, I thought you knew better than this. Once you've been a member of the working poor, you know that there is difference between buying a house and raising a family on 8.25 and hour and raising a family on 16 dollars an hour.
quote:We've also defined poverty in this country over the years in such a way that currently you can have a roof over your head, food on the table, multiple televisions, a cell phone, automobile(s), get a public college education, etc and still be considered to live at the poverty line.
And hope that nobody gets sick, plan to retire, or save up for a down payment on a house. We are living in different worlds.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It sure would. He'd close the plant altogether because raising labor costs means he'll be outbid by Chinese plants.
Of course, that'd put 100 blue-collar and 20 white-collar workers out of a job immediately. You suggesting this is an improvement?
Or I suppose you would force the plant to run at a loss? Subsidized by the government, supported by taxes gathered from...nowhere. Maybe if you invaded China?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Once you've been a member of the working poor, you know that there is difference between buying a house and raising a family on 8.25 and hour and raising a family on 16 dollars an hour.
Are you including as your baseline for "poverty" the ability to buy a home and raise a family in relative comfort?
quote: And hope that nobody gets sick, plan to retire, or save up for a down payment on a house. We are living in different worlds.
Dude, I've been in that world. You know how I got out of it? I got job skills. I didn't insist that people pay me more for labor they didn't need that much.
-------
Katie, I suspect that Irami would support a law that required American companies to only buy from your father and other American companies, or else tariffs designed to produce the same result -- probably coupled eventually with laws preventing them from charging more money for the final products. Because, after all, those would be more laws targeting employers, and everyone knows that employers are actually the enemies of "working people."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Actually, what he'd do is move the plant to Mexico. He's already half-considered it and only doesn't because it is possible to do business in the States. Double his labor costs and it wouldn't be, so the work would go elsewhere. -- I think you're right, Tom. That's so short-sighted.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:We've also defined poverty in this country over the years in such a way that currently you can have a roof over your head, food on the table, multiple televisions, a cell phone, automobile(s), get a public college education, etc and still be considered to live at the poverty line.
And hope that nobody gets sick, plan to retire, or save up for a down payment on a house. We are living in different worlds.
I've never doubted for a moment that we are living in different worlds. However, like Tom, I was in the situation I described as well, and my solution was the same.
We do have the social safety nets of Medicaid and Social Security for retirement and health problems for the poor. I just don't agree that someone that can't afford to purchase their own home lives in poverty.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It sure would. He'd close the plant altogether because raising labor costs means he'll be outbid by Chinese plants.
Of course, that'd put 100 blue-collar and 20 white-collar workers out of a job immediately. You suggesting this is an improvement?
Depending on who his clients are, this is where public policy becomes an issue. You call them "blue-collar workers," I reserve that term for unionized construction workers or plumbers, I get the feeling that I'd employ a nastier noun to describe the guys in your dad's plant.
_______________________
quote: Katie, I suspect that Irami would support a law that required American companies to only buy from your father and other American companies, or else tariffs designed to produce the same result -- probably coupled eventually with laws preventing them from charging more money for the final products. Because, after all, those would be more laws targeting employers, and everyone knows that employers are actually the enemies of "working people."
*nods*
Keeping your father in the states and maintaining a broad economic base is important for American stability, but I am not willing to degrade what I consider our nation's democratic principles in order to do it.
[ May 08, 2007, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Really? 1) what are you basing this on, and 2) what, exactly, word would you use? --- In case it isn't clear, since you nothing about the plant, the workers there, or their lives or salaries, everything you say will be based on wishful thinking, shocking racism, and willful ignorance.
Public policy? You WOULD put into action the self-defeating tariffs and laws Tom mentioned? Everything you say exposes your ignorance of economics, public policy, and history.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is there a reason you feel entitled to insult complete strangers, much less Katie's father (by implication)?
And why not call "public policy" what it is: regulation of private commerce?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Keeping your father in the states and maintaining a broad economic base is important for American stability, I am willing to degrade what I consider our nation's democratic principles in order to do it.
So, laying aside the fact that this is laughable and would not work, it shows your venality. Your principles are up for sale.
No matter how protectionist laws you pass, you can't pass a law that forces the plant to stay open if the owners have no economic incentive to keep it so. They'd get out of the business and take their capital with them.
Of course, your next plan would be to take their capital from them, right? That's your next brilliant step in your unworkable plan?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And why not call "public policy" what it is: regulation of private commerce?
It could be private commerce, but if we find out that the final wellspring is a fat government contract that's been outsourced to within an inch of it's life, then we are talking about the regulation of public funds. Either way, I think this is preferable to regulating private commerce by sustaining a class of working poor.
katharina, I forgot the "not," in your last quote. "I am not willing..."
[ May 08, 2007, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you're back to being happy with seeing 120 people out of work?
You suggesting they move to Mexico? Because that's where the jobs would be.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Katie, I suspect that Irami would support a law that required American companies to only buy from your father and other American companies, or else tariffs designed to produce the same result -- probably coupled eventually with laws preventing them from charging more money for the final products. Because, after all, those would be more laws targeting employers, and everyone knows that employers are actually the enemies of "working people."
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Irami, your solution is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences. Even if we assume your remedy solves the targeted problem, it would cause more problems, some worse than the original problem. The cure is worse than the disease.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think Irami realizes the extent to which we rely on business with other countries.
I've occasionally seen economists on blogs run quick numbers on various degrees of drop in exchange with other countries.
Typical results of massive drops in exchange would be depressions that put the great depression to shame.
Trade creates wealth. Making trade significantly more difficult destroys wealth. This is true no matter who the trade is with.
edit: I also wonder if Irami would be okay with the result, which would be that the poor are worse off (in terms of what they are able to consume, including housing and healthcare), but that other people (the middle class, the rich) would be even more worse off, meaning there was more 'equality' in terms of income.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Either way, I think this is preferable to regulating private commerce by sustaining a class of working poor.
Would you rather that the working poor have no sustenance at all?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami, you are either wilfully ignorant or tragically ignorant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Dude, I've been in that world. You know how I got out of it? I got job skills. I didn't insist that people pay me more for labor they didn't need that much.
Tom wins the thread. Open up more avenues for people at or below the poverty line to get and keep more job skills, and widen the avenues already open. That's your solution, not paying landscapers >200% their current wages and benefits and thus price them right out of business.
quote:Depending on who his clients are, this is where public policy becomes an issue. You call them "blue-collar workers," I reserve that term for unionized construction workers or plumbers, I get the feeling that I'd employ a nastier noun to describe the guys in your dad's plant.
You can use one term, the rest of the planet can use another term, Irami.
quote:Keeping your father in the states and maintaining a broad economic base is important for American stability, but I am not willing to degrade what I consider our nation's democratic principles in order to do it.
Your democratic principles will be just swell to the people you priced out of jobs...or are you going to force suburbanites to purchase the services of landscapers, and weddings of caterers, etc.?
quote:Keeping your father in the states and maintaining a broad economic base is important for American stability, but I am not willing to degrade what I consider our nation's democratic principles in order to do it.
Katie's father is white, and most of his employees (if I remember right, he lives in Utah) probably are as well. White strangers are, at least if Irami's behavior is any judge, unworthy of any kind of courtesy or benefit of the doubt on any subject whatsoever.
quote:Trade creates wealth. Making trade significantly more difficult destroys wealth. This is true no matter who the trade is with.
Wait, now Tom's victory in this thread becomes much less certain...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Katie's father is white, and most of his employees (if I remember right, he lives in Utah) probably are as well. White strangers are, at least if Irami's behavior is any judge, unworthy of any kind of courtesy or benefit of the doubt on any subject whatsoever.
We've established that I'm a bigot removed from reality, but I have a suspicion that if we seperate the white collar from the blue collar jobs, we'll find that white collar jobs are largely held by white people, with maybe a bilingual latina secretary or two, and the 100 blue collar jobs are largely held by latinos and blacks- way out of proportion with the state census, with a handful of white developmentally disabled, ex-cons and obvious tools mixed in. Furthermore, if we looked at the salary breakdowns, 30 of the 35 top earners would be white. (I'm assuming an odd Asian and a handful of religiously loyal minority supervisors to account for those five salaries,) and 47 out of the 50 lowest paid jobs will be held by recent immigrants or other minorites. But this is all conjecture.
[ May 08, 2007, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Conjecture"? Is that what they're calling pulling invented numbers out of your-- excuse me, out of thin air?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why would you engage in conjecture of that sort? Leaving aside the fact that you're trying to draw conclusions from purely imaginary suppositions, does your "conjecture" actually produce useful recommendations?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets see, 30 out of 35. That is slightly excessive at 86%, only 75% of the US is white. Even a fairly slight bias could, at the high ends, cause that much discrepancy.
Regarding lower paid jobs, there's a substantial population of immigrants coming in with comparatively few job skills and little education. Unsurprisingly, they are represented more in lower paid jobs. This is not a problem. In fact, this is a good thing. Our economy is very free, allowing us to provide numerous jobs, lifting people out of abject poverty into relative comfort (part of the reason so much money is sent home every year).
The problem occurs when this happensbecause they are immigrants. The problem is when this happens because of the color of their skin. The problem is when we fail to have a system that allows people to leave poverty.
Some of those problems happen today. The solutions to them are not, however, what you think they are. Your 'solutions' are devastating to those you think they would protect. Any philosophical advantages would be outweighed by ruin.
Furthermore, many of those solutions seem tailored to produce an underclass. Right now, working hard matters. Working hard improves one's lot in life. Immigrants and racial minorities may dislike the US for many things, but we're still a land of opportunity, particularly in comparison to most of the places immigrants are coming from. Making it so working harder won't make any significant different in your wages unless you work an incredible amount harder, because you're already being paid more than you make the company, is a recipe for proles.
If you want, we can look at places like France, where there are similar guaranteed wages and greater difficulty being fired. Young and less educated people have insanely high unemployment in France; those guarantees aren't protecting them, they're, in the long run (which the system entered long ago) transferring wages from the young and less educated to the older and better educated, because in the long run companies just become more careful about who they hire and avoid people less likely to increase profits by the necessary costs.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Why would you engage in conjecture of that sort? Leaving aside the fact that you're trying to draw conclusions from purely imaginary suppositions, does your "conjecture" actually produce useful recommendations?
Because I think that Rakeesh, rivka and I worlds apart in conceiving the problem, and if we can't even agree on the facts of the problem, discussing a solution is worthless. Katie's dad owns a non-unionized manufacturing company, I think that I have a rough idea of the working climate. Rakeesh has a rough idea of the working climate. Katie has been silent on the issue, and while I respect her decision to plead the fifth, I can't help thinking that she wouldn't skip an opportunity to rub my face in it if my characterization were wholely off. (Thankfully, I'm just happy she didn't lie. We are talking about people's lives, and my convictions, and a smaller person in her position would have told a big whopper.)
Fugu, if the working environment in the factory is as I suspect, a "land of opportunity," shouldn't mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to run a plantation. That may have been the America the founders fought for, but that's not the one in which I want to live.
[ May 09, 2007, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Katie's dad owns a non-unionized manufacturing company, I think that I have a rough idea of the working climate.
Baloney. You know nothing and your conjecture is insulting and baseless.
I am not delineating circumstances because no one believes you and you yourself wouldn't listen if you were told.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Also, I didn't bring up my family's business - you did, and you know nothing about it beyond it's existence. I find the invasion of my personal privacy to be both in poor taste and of questionable value. You are completely dependent on me for facts, but instead choose to invent them - and do it as insultingly as possible.
Fortunately, you're completely wrong and it's obvious.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Katie's dad owns a non-unionized manufacturing company, I think that I have a rough idea of the working climate.
Bull. I've seen non-unionized manufacturing companies that treat their workers very well. I've seen non-unionized manufacturing companies that treat their workers like dogs. Without knowing anything else, you don't know anything about working conditions there.
My company was non-unionized, and we paid great salaries and had great benefits. It wasn't blue collar, so it's not directly parallel, of course.
But here's the thing you seem incapable of understanding, or even addressing: there was a limit on those salaries. At some price point, it wasn't worth it to our clients to use our services.
quote:Fugu, if the working environment in the factory is as I suspect, a "land of opportunity," shouldn't mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to run a plantation.
So now it's just a suspicion?
You've proven yourself woefully uninformed about quite a few things I happen to have first-hand experience with in the past. Given your admitted bigotry, I find your suspicions to say far more about you than the way this country does or should operate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Irami,
quote:Because I think that Rakeesh, rivka and I worlds apart in conceiving the problem, and if we can't even agree on the facts of the problem, discussing a solution is worthless.
You have no idea what my ideas are about "the problem", Irami. Well, wait, maybe you do...I'm a white man, so that means by default you know what I'm thinking.
Discussing a solution with you is worthless, not because we disagree on the the problem, but because you're perfectly willing to use total speculative BS in support of your "convictions". In my opinion, it's difficult to hold a 'conviction' about something you've entirely made up.
quote:Katie has been silent on the issue, and while I respect her decision to plead the fifth, I can't help thinking that she wouldn't skip an opportunity to rub my face in it if my characterization were wholely off. (Thankfully, I'm just happy she didn't lie. We are talking about people's lives, and my convictions, and smaller person in her position would have told a big whopper.)
Man, you're an ass.
You still haven't addressed a whole series of objections to your stupid ideas. That's not a word I throw around lightly on Hatrack, but given your complete refusal to address things that challenge your "convictions", your open bigotry, and your totally speculative 'numbers', I feel comfortable using it here.
So answer the question a bunch of people asked, Irami: exactly why do you think demand for landscaping and catering (to pick two) services would remain the same if you increased their price by 35%? Not that I believe that ridiculous number, because given the benefits and wages you want to give them, compared to what wages and benefits landscapers and restaurant workers usually earn, the increase would be far above a meager 35%.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A plantation? You're insulting all those people who did live on plantations, as well as those who are currently put in situations where they're effective slaves. You insult the people who work there, who enjoy working there, and who leave for better situations whenever they present themselves. There are problems with the structure of protections in this economy, but exaggerating the magnitude of protections to draw emotional connections to times where people were bought and sold is an awful practice.
We live in a country where immigrants routinely arrive and open new businesses, run by them, shortly after arrival. Our 'plantations' are so nice that people from other countries risk life and limb for the chances to work on them. This is a land of opportunity, and to imply that those who work hard and advance themselves are slave drivers is deeply offensive.
edit: toned down
[ May 09, 2007, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I can't help thinking that she wouldn't skip an opportunity to rub my face in it
Irami, your mistake is that you judge everyone else to be as tacky and rude and unethical as yourself.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I'm with fugu on this: it is not cool to denigrate slaves by saying what they suffer is no worse than being paid low wages. (I'm not saying anybody did this -- I didn't read all the posts -- but it is a pet peeve of mine.)
--
This conversation should probably be rebooted. This time we could leave out the "douche bag" comment.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
While I completely disagree with what Irami has been saying, and I recognize that he's made some pretty awful and unfounded assertions about kat's father's business, I think that the personal attacks on him are over the top. I'm also aware that this isn't an isolated incident (Irami's rude and unfounded assertions or the offense taken to them), and that there's probably more history between the posters than I am aware of, but I still feel that we should be careful to take issue with what has been said and not attack posters themselves.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rakeesh--"Man, you're an ass."
Isn't that a violation of the TOS?
You're probably a decent guy, Rakeesh, but when you say things like this, it makes me think you're not old enough to have gained control of your emotions. Does that not embarrass you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are times I wish Hatrack let us embed images. I have this pic of some cast iron cookery engaged in brief repartee that would be appropriate here.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That settles it. Tom definitely wins the thread.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven,
quote:You're probably a decent guy, Rakeesh, but when you say things like this, it makes me think you're not old enough to have gained control of your emotions. Does that not embarrass you?
Where were you when Irami called people he's never met a douche bag? Or expressed surprise that people didn't lie just to prove him wrong (as thought that were necessary)?
Yeah, that's where I thought you were.
Irami said that he thinks Katie wouldn't skip an opportunity to be...well, something unpleasant, to rub his accusations in his face and then said he was just glad she didn't lie about it. One obvious inference is that he expected her to lie about it.
Coupled with the other statements he's made in this thread, and in others, yeah, I'ma call him an ass. Given the things he's said, that's actually a pretty mild response to his behavior.
Your "you're so immature!" criticism is laughably ironic, and not because I think you're immature.
-----------
quote:...and that there's probably more history between the posters than I am aware of, but I still feel that we should be careful to take issue with what has been said and not attack posters themselves.
I am taking issue with what's been said. Both now and in the past.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rakeesh, you make fairly good points.
Tom, I never call people names. Period. Once again, smart as you are, perceptive as you can be, you miss my actual point. But who cares? Not I.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Rakeesh, you make fairly good points.
Tom, I never call people names. Period. Once again, smart as you are, perceptive as you can be, you miss my actual point. But who cares? Not I.
Steven, how about when you repeatedly called katherina a quote,"attention junkie", endquote in the "hey mom, I'm an atheist" thread? It was less than a month ago. Doesn't that count as calling people names?
Although I will admit you were more polite than I remembered in the Dr. Price threads.
Oh....there is absolutely no need to engage steven on my behalf, although if someone wants to do it for themself that's certainly up to them. In all the vast membership and lurkerdom of Hatrack I don't think there's a single person who takes what steven says about katharina (me) seriously; if there are, I am certainly not concerned about that person's opinion.
The ignorant, unfounded, slanderous allegations about my family's business are irritating, but I suppose they are useful to show exactly what Irami bases his view of reality on: nothing.
---
Actually, I'd love to have it out. Irami, you've done a lot of insults and sideways innuendos, but I think you should lay it out.
What exactly, are you imagining the features of work at my dad's plant to be? What's that bad word you want to call my dad's employees that you won't say out loud?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
But...do you care?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh...about Irami's opinion, not really - it wouldn't change when confronted with reality anyway.
I do care about the general impression that my dad is a ruthless plantation owner. I will say that most of the people employed there have been reccomended by other employees and that out of 100 blue-collar workers, about a quarter have been there ten years or more. Another quarter have been there five years or more. The plant went from about 75 on the floor to about a 100 on the floor within the last three years, so all in all I think that says something.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Steven, how about when you repeatedly called katherina a quote,"attention junkie", endquote in the "hey mom, I'm an atheist" thread? It was less than a month ago. Doesn't that count as calling people names?"
There's a difference between calling someone a word that would have gotten you sent to the principal's office in school, and calling them a name that notes that they tend to try to hog attention. I'm not defending my behavior, but what I said was not as much the result of an emotional outburst, IMHO.
Also, I have been called names many, many times both here and on Sake river. Rarely have I responded in kind.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
When you are in a position of prominence you will get slammed. It is inevitable. I'm happy his business is prospering and I am sure his employees are happy about that too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man. I want a bike like yours, steven-you don't even need to turn around to go backwards!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Whatever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven, don't get huffy when you say something like, "Tom, I never call people names. Period." and get called on a laughably false claim like that.
At the very least, you must admit you exaggerrated.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)