quote:The Political spectrum is an objective criteria,
Nope. Not at all. Not even a little bit.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Democrats are only "left" in so far they believe that it would be nice if society was more egalitarian, or at least feel for their districts that this is more likely to get them elected. But hit a brick wall and become rightists in their insistences that the capitalist system be allowed to be the ones to figure out how to implement that mandate.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I do however agree with you that the Democrats are center right when compared to the political spectrum in any other developed country or even to the political spectrum in the US a couple of decades back.
I disagree. I think that both parties have moved 'left' on social issues (e.g. gay rights, marijuana legalization) and both parties have moved 'right' on fiscal issues (e.g. decreased tax levels, school vouchers).
I also think that comparisons to other developed countries often discount things like immigration or abortion where the US is significantly more 'left' in comparison to other OECD countries. Another good example is tax progressivity* where the US is far and away more progressive than other developed nations.
*On tax redistributivity (which may be more what people actually mean when they talk about progressive tax systems) the US is quite retrograde (as the link shows).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SenojRetep gets to the heart of the problem you run into when you make broad claims about how right or left a country is: the terms are so broad and encompass so much that people only think about the issues that matter most to them, and gloss over the importance of other stuff.
I think that in many broad strokes, the US political field is unique in (sort of) the way Blayne means. To the extent that he's right, it's to do with many of the unique factors that went into America's formative decades, and the resulting culture.
That culture still has an effect on our politics today, but it's hardly the only influence.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: *On tax redistributivity (which may be more what people actually mean when they talk about progressive tax systems) the US is quite retrograde (as the link shows).
Should we really care about the progressiveness of our tax system, separate from the way it redistributes wealth? I mean, one way of doing it vs. another might be more or less efficient, but the moral question that the left and right disagree about is whether to redistribute wealth, not how to structure tax brackets.
quote:To the extent that he's right, it's to do with many of the unique factors that went into America's formative decades, and the resulting culture.
That culture still has an effect on our politics today, but it's hardly the only influence.
A more cynical take on this: an idealized and fairly inaccurate conception of the formative period of American history has developed over the years. While largely mistaken, it contains enough grains of truth that it's hard to put down. It's the influence of this distorted take on history that explains the difference between the US and Europe, not the actual circumstances of the country's founding.
(Of course this doesn't go for the differences between the US and Europe that are explained by the actual content of our Constitution, like our more robust free speech rights.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple more things on the actual election:
1) I mistook the actual numbers. After factoring in outside spending the differential was $45.5 million to $20.8 million, or a 2.25:1 ratio (rather than my 3.5:1 or the 7.5:1 Kate mentioned).
quote:I'd say that the real lesson here is how little the electoral results changed after a vast change in financing. That is, the biggest story here is that money didn't matter all that much.
Andrew Gelman (another fairly good, quantitative political scientist) takes a bit of issue, although he's more concerned with what he feels is Masket's overgeneralization rather than his specific conclusions about this particular election:
quote:There’s been a lot of research showing that money matters in campaigns, but more so in nonpartisan contests such as referenda and less so in highly partisan contexts. I think that’s the way to address such questions. Not by taking a single before-after comparison and treating it as a causal effect. That’s just sloppy.
quote:“Reports coming into our call center have confirmed that Walker’s allies just launched a massive wave of voter suppression calls to recall petition signers.” According to Urbina-McCarthy, the message of the calls was: “If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday.”
quote:To the extent that he's right, it's to do with many of the unique factors that went into America's formative decades, and the resulting culture.
That culture still has an effect on our politics today, but it's hardly the only influence.
A more cynical take on this: an idealized and fairly inaccurate conception of the formative period of American history has developed over the years. While largely mistaken, it contains enough grains of truth that it's hard to put down. It's the influence of this distorted take on history that explains the difference between the US and Europe, not the actual circumstances of the country's founding.
(Of course this doesn't go for the differences between the US and Europe that are explained by the actual content of our Constitution, like our more robust free speech rights.)
Hey man, since you in this very post thought of a legitimate example of what I was talking about, why would you go on to assume that A) You know exactly what I was referring to, and B) I was referring to all of the stuff that is based in myth and not fact.
I mean I guess you did say you were being cynical, but it seems specifically like cynicism targeted at me. Boo.
Anyway, yeah, there's lots of other examples of things in our Constitution that set us apart from most of the rest of the developed world. Many of those things were trampled almost immediately, often by the founding fathers. Including some of the things that were then restored and largely kept intact to this day (you mentioned free speech, but it's not like Alien & Sedition never happened, right?)
But restored or not, these things were still in the constitution. Which meant that later generations could look to them, and try to hold the government to whatever standard in the Constitution they thought was not being met. Even if it had never been reliably met! I think that's awesome.
Also, when I talked about the formative decades of the US, I wasn't solely referring to the Constitution. There are plenty of other things that make us pretty unique, like the history of our immigration.
I don't really care what you attribute it to. I've seen lots of theories. The point is just that it's true that our political landscape is very different from Europe, or any other developed nation on earth.
And to many of us, that's in many ways a wonderful thing.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Capitalists and libertarians who hate unions are IMO flatly hypocritical. Even if we were to accept that unions are a form of anti-free-market collusion between workers, why is that unacceptable when businesses are allowed to collude freely? Why can't I include, as the terms of my employment, that I want to be in a union that must be respected by law? Why can't a group of workers negotiate as a single body if they want, which is something that business owners do all the time? Even from the capitalist perspective, we can understand these as benefits, which can be understood as another form of compensation - job security, transparent wage negotiation, legal support, etc.
"If you don't like it, stop working there" is the sort of free market refrain you hear when someone complains about their job. But when workers actually, you know, do exactly that and stop working and demand better jobs, it's considered unethical and manipulative.
I do not want to stretch "unions as a form of compensation" too far because I don't think unions should be considered in such strictly utilitarian terms. Ideally unions are anti-capitalist and provide some basic measure of support against unfair work practices encouraged by free-market capitalists. But I think even in the world of capitalism, there is no compelling argument against unions. If a group of workers decide that they want a basic level of security and representation in their workplace, then that's just something business owners have to deal with.
quote:IMO people also conflate the security of a union with "inefficiencies" based on the erroneous belief that business owners always make the best decisions for their business - or, at least, that business owners should be 100% within their right to make whatever capricious decisions they want, no matter how detrimental those decisions might be to someone else's life.
In other words, if a union protects a worker from being unfairly fired, people naturally assume that the business owner is correct (or within their right) and that the union is merely delaying the proper business decision.
It would be like arguing that our justice system is "inefficient" because we insist on giving people a fair trial. That's not the point - our objective isn't to churn through employees as profitably as possible, just as our objective in court isn't to throw people in jail as quickly as possible. (At least in theory blah blah blah ****ed up prison-industrial complex.) We recognize these outcomes as extremely harmful to people's lives and want to make sure people are not treated unfairly.
I think this comparison, while somewhat dramatic (losing your job =/= getting thrown in jail), is apt: we even use similar terms like "representation."
These are quotes about unions! I guess I just felt like talking about unions all the sudden.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam: Both of those quotes completely ignore the actual gripes against unions that I see from free-market advocates.
I mean, they're representative of most of the responses free-market advocates get when they voice their concerns about certain union practices and certain types of unions. But they're awful, awful straw men.
It's telling that you think these are worth posting, though!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the actual gripes are more around stuff like compulsory membership where, once a union is established, all employees must be union members, pay dues, etc. in order to be employed by that employer.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I definitely assumed you thought they were reasonable arguments. I'd be happy to be mistaken, though!
And you're right, I should. Family visiting from out of town, so I'll try to keep it brief:
The two most common criticisms of unions that I see are:
1: Mandatory union involvement. In many states, even if you choose not to join a union, the union can still force you to pay them if you work in their industry. They're backed up by the State government. This seems to go from government forcibly breaking up organized employees full circle to government forcing people who don't want to join a union to effectively join it anyway.
2: Public sector unions. Generally because of things like a lack of competition (so they can more effectively hold services hostage than a private sector union could) and a conflict of interests, as negotiations between employee/employer have a different dynamic than negotiations between a public sector union and the public official they elected.
I have agreements and disagreements with the above, to be clear. I'm not saying I endorse all of those positions 100%.
But neither of your quotes seem to really address any of those points, and I think they are the biggest points that "anti-union" people bring up. Including the situation in Wichigan/Misconsin/wherever Walker is, since to my (admittedly limited) knowledge he's only going after public sector unions.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the actual gripes are more around stuff like compulsory membership where, once a union is established, all employees must be union members, pay dues, etc. in order to be employed by that employer.
If it's that big a deal, we probably shouldn't require that lawyers all belong to their state's bar association.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't know Heuvel was so unknown. Though she's a self-professed progressive, where one puts her on the political spectrum depends on one's own political position. She alone doesn't constitute a major progressive force but she's in a position of significant influence and is very outspoken. I think there are many people in such positions involved in machinations to force the country in a far-left direction but they lack any significant following among the general population to be taken seriously. I don't have any interest in discussing her or progressivism as there is much still to be discussed about unions and Wisconsin.
MattP iterated the the charges against public sector unions that I feel were the basis for Wisconsin citizens wanting the influence of unions reduced.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: These are quotes about unions! I guess I just felt like talking about unions all the sudden.
quote:It's not "a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process" but that democratic process occurred in 2011 when Walker beat Barrett the first time. Is the union-led left going to call for a recall every year until the candidate they support wins? If that happened every election for every elected official the system would fail. It would be non-stop campaigning and seats flip-flopping mere months apart. We have terms of office and other checks to avoid that very destructive scenario.
This is a good point, but I don't think you can take a principled stand on this issue. Let's say a really bad candidate got elected, the equivalent of a Hitler. Then of course the right thing to do would be to have a recall. You can't say it's absolutely wrong, period, to try to recall an official because the official's policies are abhorrent to you.
So then the issue just becomes, is Walker bad enough to justify recalling him? My sense is that he is, but I can understand a reasonable person with what I'd consider correct principles holding the other view.
You think Walker is the bee's knees. OK. Can you understand why people on what you call the "radical left"--which includes a large enough fraction of Wisconsin that it's pretty weird to call it radical--would say Walker is so far beyond the pale that any and every legal measure for wresting power away from him has to at least be attempted?
You're right in saying one can't take a principled stand against recall, and I agree with you (e.g. Hitler), but the recall option should be used with extreme prudence. Once it becomes a commonly accepted legal measure to use against political opponents then any political persuasion can easily and quickly find justification for it. (Think Tea Party recalling a politician for raising taxes. Not a far-fetched proposition if recall comes to be perceived as acceptable, commonplace, and effective.)
I can understand reasonable people holding opinions of unions and Walker that are opposite of mine but we probably won't agree on whether Walker merited a recall vote. I don't view Walker's actions as immoral or a sign of incompetence. To the contrary, in fact. I believe he had the moral imperative to do the will of the people of Wisconsin, who voted him into office, and had he jeopardized the already shakey fiscal situation of the state by acquiescing to the demands of the unions, that would have been an indication of his inability to govern with good judgement.
With the benefit of nearly 70 years of perspective, yes, we would both recall Hitler. But I don't think Walker and Hitler are in the same ball park when it comes to political and moral ideology.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:...had he jeopardized the already shakey fiscal situation of the state by acquiescing to the demands of the unions...
Not to quibble, but, um.... You realize that the public sector unions in question had made no demands of the state, right? That in fact the state had gone to the unions and asked them to accept pay freezes, mandatory furloughs, and reduced benefits, and the unions had actually agreed to all of these requests?
The unions were not making any new demands of the state, and were in fact bending to demands from the state.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Same thing happened in MA, wiht the state college workers. Romney screwed them hard, AFTER they had volunteered to defer already agreed upon raises for years.
Romney let the agreement end, then cried foul, stating the workers, who had deferred their raises for 5 year at that point, were greedy, then he defaulted on their labor agreement. Once again, only AFTER the concessions were done.
It was one of the most backhanded, dirty political moves I have seen in my life, and it's no wonder he is no longer Governor in MA. His record there alone should disqualify him to be POTUS.
quote:If it's that big a deal, we probably shouldn't require that lawyers all belong to their state's bar association.
Right. Also of note: in non-right-to-work states union membership isn't compelled by any law, it's compelled by a contract settled on between the union and the employer. The employer freely agrees not to hire anyone who's not employed by the union. Right-to-work laws prevent unions and employers from agreeing to such contracts. I used to not understand this (until very recently) and thought right-to-work made sense.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:It's not "a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process" but that democratic process occurred in 2011 when Walker beat Barrett the first time. Is the union-led left going to call for a recall every year until the candidate they support wins? If that happened every election for every elected official the system would fail. It would be non-stop campaigning and seats flip-flopping mere months apart. We have terms of office and other checks to avoid that very destructive scenario.
This is a good point, but I don't think you can take a principled stand on this issue. Let's say a really bad candidate got elected, the equivalent of a Hitler. Then of course the right thing to do would be to have a recall. You can't say it's absolutely wrong, period, to try to recall an official because the official's policies are abhorrent to you.
So then the issue just becomes, is Walker bad enough to justify recalling him? My sense is that he is, but I can understand a reasonable person with what I'd consider correct principles holding the other view.
You think Walker is the bee's knees. OK. Can you understand why people on what you call the "radical left"--which includes a large enough fraction of Wisconsin that it's pretty weird to call it radical--would say Walker is so far beyond the pale that any and every legal measure for wresting power away from him has to at least be attempted?
You're right in saying one can't take a principled stand against recall, and I agree with you (e.g. Hitler), but the recall option should be used with extreme prudence. Once it becomes a commonly accepted legal measure to use against political opponents then any political persuasion can easily and quickly find justification for it. (Think Tea Party recalling a politician for raising taxes. Not a far-fetched proposition if recall comes to be perceived as acceptable, commonplace, and effective.)
I can understand reasonable people holding opinions of unions and Walker that are opposite of mine but we probably won't agree on whether Walker merited a recall vote. I don't view Walker's actions as immoral or a sign of incompetence. To the contrary, in fact. I believe he had the moral imperative to do the will of the people of Wisconsin, who voted him into office, and had he jeopardized the already shakey fiscal situation of the state by acquiescing to the demands of the unions, that would have been an indication of his inability to govern with good judgement.
With the benefit of nearly 70 years of perspective, yes, we would both recall Hitler. But I don't think Walker and Hitler are in the same ball park when it comes to political and moral ideology.
You're literally saying the same argument I've seen Conservatives say as to why the Bush Administration shouldn't have been tried for war crimes.
Secondly cutting public sector jobs and wages actually slows down economic growth making the debt situation worse, so..... By your logic Walker has not shown himself to govern with good judgement ergo the recall is justified.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say the first one was justified. If they try to recall him again not only would it be stupid, it would be a waste of resources.
However, if his campaign did do anything illegal, suppressing voter turnout, that is a whole different ball of wax. That type of crap isn't acceptable regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Voter suppression has been a proud American tradition for a *very* long time now.
IP: Logged |
The elderly are just about the if not the biggest group that will be impacted by this law-many many many many don't have photo ID, and live more than ten miles from offices they need to visit to get one. That's if they have a birth certificate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: spain's pretty messy in general. is the unemployment rate for young people still as bad?
I haven't been following too closely but I believe so. I came across the ghost town that is part of Madrid thanks to a new episode of the show Top Gear I saw last night. They were driving through a completely deserted yet brand new city development. Brand new, fully functional international airport, empty. Thousands of brand new, never used apartments, hotel rooms and condos, all empty. Brand new and completely empty highways to nowhere. It was really eery, like the zombie apocalypse had hit and they were the last three people alive. That article only shows a piece of it.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
man, and facilities like that cost tons of money per month just to upkeep and heat; the second you don't invest that, it quickly becomes unusable through degradation, concrete spalling, etc
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: man, and facilities like that cost tons of money per month just to upkeep and heat; the second you don't invest that, it quickly becomes unusable through degradation, concrete spalling, etc
posted
Concrete used in buildings like these is rarely entrained like concrete on a bridge or sidewalk would be, so once the heat gets shut off, it sets in deceptively fast. Interiors, plaster, flooring, carpeting, and drywall will rot, pipes will burst, and then, like clockwork, foundations and concrete will start to flake.
There's a lot of manufacturing plants and office buildings and stuff which are lying completely unoccupied and unused but whose owners are keeping them in a state of upkeep in the hopes someone moves back in or production resumes, and the tab can run amazingly high.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's certainly a thing, but if the concrete was mixed and placed at all competently, spalling in this location shouldn't be a concern for a while. That said, I agree with the main point that places like this aren't designed to last a long time, they're designed to be maintained for a long time and thus will quickly loose all value when left unused.
posted
Usually what happens is that the roof fails first. We all know they don't last forever. Once the roof starts leaking, water can get to exposed rebar or embedded anchor bolts, etc. at the top of the walls and start rusting. The rust continues on into the interior of the concrete, expands and the whole thing starts to fall apart. If the building was in use, roof leaks would be repaired quickly.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
