That post shows little understanding of population distributions. California and other so-called blue states aren’t solely populated with above average workers. They have their fair share of the left end of the bell curve.
And if you think that competition with wages doesn’t work how do you explain China’s ridiculous growth?
Yeah, no shit Sherlock.
The meth addict who finds a dollar on the street has his net worth grow faster (percentage-wise) than the millionaire who makes a clever investment. Should the millionaire start smoking meth in an attempt to duplicate the addict’s results?
Or, here’s a more sincere question: as China becomes richer, do you think they’ll have more worker rights regulations or fewer?
You cited a number. (A long skinny one, but essentially a number.) It was exactly like saying “My car goes 80.” There is a huge amount of missing information.
As a tiny example, the graph’s source shows that, in 1960, about 40% of the population was employed, whereas today, the number is much closer to 50% (the bulk of the increase attributable to more women working). I suspect there is some sort of significance to that, but I am not sure what it is.
Why is that?
China is not analogous to a meth addict any more. Taking purchasing power into account China, aided by destructive but compassionate sounding leftist policies (which this thread is nominally about), is shaping up to be a very serious strategic competitor.
Do I think China will be more worker friendly? That’s hard to say. Maybe in the far future.
So that’s a no, for the near future.
Actually on China, it’s worth bearing in mind that there are two Chinas in terms of the workforce:
On the one hand, yes, you have very low labor costs in much of the country. It’s hard for first-world countries to compete with this: the living costs are also extremely low in those areas. You can’t live in the US on those salaries.
And if the US tariffs these cheap goods, it just puts the US at a disadvantage to all those countries that buy Chinese goods directly (or if the US subsidizes local industry then it’s simply the taxpayer propping up an uneconomic industry).
But at the same time, the real threat to US jobs come from the tech and precision engineering hubs in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai and some second-tier cities. In these places, salaries are already basically the same as a mid-level first world country, and worker conditions are pretty good and improving all the time.
The advantage for these tech hubs comes instead from investment in R&D, education and economies of scale.
I point this out because people in the US often conflate these two things.
The US absolutely should be competing for the second kind of jobs, but those jobs have next to nothing to do with a race to the bottom and trying to pay low-level workers as little as possible. Nor is protectionism going to work long term.
Otto von Bismarck, not exactly a lovable liberal, instituted the first modern social welfare system, not because he admired proles and peasants, but to 1) steal political issues from Socialists, 2) have a healthier, wealthier, more productive nation that paid the Kaiser more taxes, and 3) keep the proles and peasants from rising up and slaughtering the aristos. GOPs don’t seem to grasp such subtle stuff.
A party, platform, or politician that promotes a healthier, wealthier, better educated, more productive, more tax-paying nation is constructive and works in America’s interest. Opponents are destructive tools of America’s enemies, working AGAINST our national interest. Who do GOP positions benefit?
As I said, Dems will stay destructive as long as they work for corporations, not the populace. Benito Mussolini coined a term for corporate control of government. He called it ‘fascism’.
I believe that’s called the “East-West Divide” here in China. Here is an article from the South China Morning Post about it.
I have no idea how you people still, to this day, can not differentiate between illegal aliens and “immigrants”. They are not the same thing. An Immigrant is a legal migrant that has gone through the process of legally migrating, can support themself, has desirable skills, or is a legal relative of an American. Just because Juan from Mexico skipped the border, lied on a W4 and stole a social security number, gains illegal employment - does not make him ‘an immigrant’ This is not a “net gain” and there are millions that do it.
And illegal aliens DO get entitlements that they shouldn’t, they get truckloads taxpayer funded assistance.
One example is free K-12 schooling. Who pays for that? Taxpayers.
The list is endless if you go through it, and the cost is absurd, both direct and indirect costs.
Oh, theres a shitload of blame to go around, but I would respect the Democrat party a whole hell of alot more if they were campaigning in those horrible places within our borders instead of for people that shouldn’t even be here.
I follow the left pretty closely and none of them appear to give a single shit about the forgotten people of the country.
Or maybe you meant rural communities:
Even Mayor Pete’s Getting In On It!
Closely? Five minutes proves your ignorance.
EDIT: Just in case you were maybe talking about the homeless veterans - Republicans were the ones complaining that the programs to help them cost too much under Obama.
:rolleyes:
Lip service. Every politician has it, just like the ones you quoted. And not a single policy or system noted in any of that on HOW they are going to do it.
You’ve proved nothing other than certifying your own ignorance.
And I see you passed this up:
But no, they choose to stand in front of news cameras and podiums in safe clean areas surrounded by their most devoted followers.
So what you’re actually talking about is fraud, not Democrats giving free stuff to illegal immigrants.
K12 happens to be one where it’s really hard for anyone to not pay into that tax base, because it’s primarily locally funded through property tax.
Heck, you don’t even have to talk about veterans. Look at what the current republican president has pulled with funds that were targeted by Congress for quality of life issues (among them housing) for current service members and their families.
In an era of easy global trade and heterogeneous populations the structural advantages that enable certain types of labor inefficiencies in exchange for votes are greatly weakened. The parts of the dem platform that don’t acknowledge global competition is what is truly destructive.
Democrats support medial care for illegal aliens.
Democrats support abortion for illegal aliens.
Democrats support sanctuary cities for illegal aliens.
Thats literally what they support, and thats literally what they’ve said, publicly.
Thats free stuff.
First off, the main reason Uber and Lyft are doing so well, is specifically because they bill themselves as some sort of rider/driver matching service, NOT as some kind of taxi service. In other words, they’re basically skirting the existing taxi regulations by claiming that they don’t actually provide a taxi service, but rather provide the technological framework to help individual riders and contractor drivers meet up.
I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect that the fact that the drivers are contractors and NOT employees is somehow integral to that particular dodge- sort of a legal fig leaf of some kind.
Beyond that, the effects of such a law would probably not be limited to just Lyft and Uber, but rather would apply to pretty much ANY contracted relationship.
That’s the point of contracting- you’re hiring someone to perform a job for you, not employing them. If I go and hire some guy to say… wash my car, it’s none of my business if he has retirement savings, health insurance, etc… We just agreed that he’d perform the service of washing my car for the agreed price of X dollars.
That’s ultimately what Lyft/Uber are doing- they’re saying - “Driver, you’re an independent contractor, and you’re contracted to drive people we provide you with at an agreed upon rate of X dollars per mile/minute with certain minimums, etc…”
This way, they can have a lot more drivers available in a lot more places and times than if they had to formally employ them all, AND by having them be contractors, this allows for the drivers to set their own schedules, drive their own cars, etc… Basically it puts the control in the driver’s seat. The catch is that they aren’t employees- they’re contractors. They’re not driving company cars, Uber isn’t going to fix their car, replace their tires, etc… But they can choose to only work Tuesday nights, or only within a 3 mile radius of their home, or whatever, and there’s nothing Uber can do about that.
If Uber/Lyft were to reclassify their drivers as employees, the drivers might get more benefits, but they’d also potentially lose a lot of control over how/when/where they work. Uber/Lyft would then be able to say “Joe Driver, you need to be at the football game at 9:30 when it’s expected to be over, and we expect you to pick up X number of riders that night”. Right now, the driver could say “My real job starts early on Monday; I’m not going to drive the post-games this season.”
I can agree with most of that, but fail to see how that’s gonna HELP the drivers. Drivers aren’t gonna get customers if the prices are too high, and high they certainly will be. It’s popular because it’s cheaper. It’ll be a whole shitload less popular if they are priced the same as taxis.
Whoa whoa whoa – where are these free abortions you’re talking about? Asking for a friend!
Also, do illegal aliens pay taxes?