It was the desperation talking. Some of my best friends have been dumbass slackers. I used to be one myself. So, sorry for the mini-outburst. Still, I meant the larger point. The best way to help people who genuinely are stuck at McDonalds because there’s a lack of jobs is to encourage entrepreneurship. I really really think that Democrats are burdened with a “we hate captalism” and “the market is evil” reputation. That’s scary to people who really are working hard to get ahead and fulfill the American dream.
As much as I oppose the whole idea of a minimum wage, I doubt that there would be much problem with raising the federal MW a bit (per my earlier post). Most states have higher MW levels anyway, so it wouldn’t matter all that much. I see it mainly as a PR thing. But the contract needs to have some real meat in it that addresses real problems-- the problem with America is NOT that our federal minimum wage is too low.
Obviously, I got frustrated the other direction and, well, called you a prune heart. I don’t really think you’re a prune heart. 
First, fulfilling the American dream means different things to different people. Some people aren’t interested in owning a business (like me, for example). I want to work hard and then go home.
Second, unless McDonalds is going out of business, they’ll need workers. If more jobs are available, and the worker pool is smaller, McD’s wages still go up. Why is it unfair if wages go up if it happens one way, but fair if it happens a different way?
I like your idea about phasing in certain regulations for startup businesses. Though a major stumbling block would be preventing companies from simply shutting down and restarting, shutting down and restarting. Thoughts?
I work in sales for a manufacturing company. OSHA and the EPA aren’t big issues for us. The cost of compliance simply isn’t that big. BWC and health insurance, on the other hand, eat us alive. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on those, and more like a few thousand on OSHA and the EPA combined. Thoughts?
Blessed are the pacemakers. 
Sure, I understand that. Not everyone is an entrepreneur, but everyone who isn’t works for one. The more entrepreneurship, the more jobs.
Raising wages in response to market demands means that there exists a general prosperity already. Artificial wage and price controls are a signal that the market is sick.
Good catch. No corporation having had the same officers or board members (including their families) may qualify until a waiting period of, oh, say seven years.
I worked in a company that distributed manufacturers goods, and the burdens of OSHA and DOT compliance were enormous. We were a small business, and I’ve told the story before of an inspector ordering us to take our glove boxes off the top shelves. Glove boxes are bulky, with shifting centers of gravity, and when moved on pallets by forklift tend to fall over. Only thing was, our warehouse was so small, and our aisles so narrow, that we didn’t have a forklift. So, once we moved the gloves to the lower shelves, we had to move pipe fittings and such to the top. When a customer came in for a few ells or some small valves, we had to hunt down the roll-around ladder and scurry up it to fill bags with these small parts. We had about four critical care visits a year on account of this, from people falling off (OSHA approved) ladders and dropping steel parts on people under them. I had to have the swelling relieved in my toe by a doctor wielding a wood burner because a guy dropped a shut-off valve on it. Later, after a visit from DOT, we had to hire a materials manager to handle compliance for our deliveries. Turned out our pickup truck that we delivered parts with needed certain markings, the drivers needed certain training, everything in the place needed signs from the dock to the bathroom, and none of us had the time or education to study the 6 volume set of rules they sent us. That materials manager was our last hire before we all had to go find other jobs. The company closed.
Now that would be an interesting take- examining how the current healthcare system hurts business. I think health care is our #1 domestic issue. Right now the system is wildly expensive and very broken. But it’s going to take work for people to realize that their nifty job-provided health insurance still costs them tons of money- just a bit more indirectly, and that there can be a better way.
I think the market is sick. There are so many factors futzing with the market artificially that I don’t think expecting the market to correct itself is logical.
To use an analogy: Say that something nasty in the air gives people cancer. Once they’ve got the cancer, it’s not logical to expect the cancer just to go away because the nasty thing shouldn’t have been in the air in the first place.
I’m assuming you think that a healthy market can and would support all of the people it needs to support. I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t see anything inherent in any market that enables it to expand indefinitely, and if it can’t then someone gets screwed, and screwed hard. Someone gets stuck at McDonalds.
For those who are or would be stuck, having someone say that they’re lucky their plight is a function of a healthy market instead of a sick one is cold comfort. It doesn’t pay their bills or keep them fed. I don’t see the value in sacrificing those people for the sake of the “market.”
Its not true…your assumption is incorrect. The market isn’t there to support ‘all of the people it needs to support’. Thats not the role of the market.
Nothing, including the market, expands indefinitely. Thats a rather silly arguement, don’t you think? As for someone getting stuck at McDonalds, thats life unfortuantely. There are and have always been winners and losers in life…and there always will be. Isn’t it enough for you that society has taken upon itself the duty of providing a safety net so folks don’t starve? Now they have to be happy and have fulfilling jobs as well, reguardless of what choices they make or don’t make…reguardless of ability or motivation? Just because they need them? Where does it stop…and whats the cost?
Conversely I don’t see the value of sacrificing the market for a few people…since generally speaking a market economy is what provides prosperity for the majority. Again, why isn’t it enough that society provides a safety net? Why do we all have to sacrifice our prosperity for some kind of government controlled and highly regulated economy. Have those worked out well in the past? Generally speaking, is it better for a minority to ‘lose’ so that the majority can prosper, especially when there is a safety net for those in the minority to prevent them from starving? Or is it better that we all have less prosperity, so that no one rises above the achievements of our brothers? Screw with the market at the peril of us all…
-XT
Sorry…this thread isn’t about the market but about Democrats contract with America. Disreguard the above post if you would…I didn’t mean to fly off on a complete tangent there.
-XT
When I say I am fascinated by the domination of this conversation by conservatives, I don’t necessarily mean this as a bad thing. It really is interesting.
Liberal, I did think your ideas were interesting; I’m trying to respond to lots of folks at once here, though, so I may give some shorter shrift than others.
There definitely are areas where I think the Democratic party can take some good ideas from the Republican party. I’ve already mentioned places where I think we can do this: line item veto, balanced budget. I’ll back the child tax credit and elimination of the “Marriage Penalty.” And there are others. I could definitely get behind faith-based programs, as long as any such initiative were faith-blind instead of faith-biased.
However, at the same time, there are areas where I am not willing to give up ground, and where I think it would be a bad idea for us to give up ground. I see the debate here as being twofold:
- What areas ought the Democrats compromise in, as opposed to the areas where compromise is unwise or unethical; and
- What areas ought the Democrats emphasize?
Daniel
But all market-oriented public policies seem to be based on the assumption that the market will expand indefinitely (and will never overload the ecosystem’s carrying capacity in the process).
I’m sorry Daniel, what were my proposals? Chopped liver? Am I a conservative all of a sudden? Look, I know I favor working with the free market system, but I do want to game it to favor the middle class instead of the wealthy. Isn’t that liberal enough for ya?
I very much agree. So rather than futz with it further, why not disencumber it of futziness?
Certainly. But why not remove the carcinogens as well? Too much radiation and chemo can kill the patient.
Well, now, that’s not fair. 
I went out of my way to say that I’m not going to go all libertarian on you, and that I’m honestly trying to participate in this discussion with good faith and in the spirit that was intended by the OP. I’m not advocating (as I normally would) the wholesale elimination of OSHA. I’m just asking for some common sense adjustments to assist startup entrepreneurs. Likewise, I’m not saying remove all safety nets out from under low wage workers. I’m just saying that there are more ways to give people opportunity for real improvement than giving them a little more gruel each week.
But it’s the market that provides the revenue for you to tax to help those people. Hurt it, and you hurt them as well.
Be fiscally responsible. Be realistic in any new programs (or expansions to existing programs) to remain revenue neutral…don’t radically raise taxes, even to the ‘rich’, but especially not to middle America. Don’t gleefully go in with the idea you are going to ‘soak the rich’, but with a sane fiscal policy. Lose the class warfare tripe, and dump the screechers in your party that keep that mantra up (or at least marginalize)…capitalism/big business isn’t the enemy of the people, and it certainly shouldn’t be the enemy of the Democrats. Don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg in other words.
I wouldn’t compromise on most of your social positions…I’d just look at refining your positions on them. Some of the Dem positions are a bit out moded and need some updating. Civil rights and the environment are things that you should definitely stay with, but that could use some modernization to bring it in step with today. Become the technology and science party, reform and refine your positions on the environment with some compromise…meet business half way. Push through nuclear power in a big way. Push alternative fuels and other technologies for a cleaner environment, especially for personal transport. Encourage and provide incentives for private companies to invest in R&D in projects dealing with alternative fuels and clearner environmental energy. Push through things like stem cell research. Become the party of the future…but do so in a way that doesn’t come across as superior or condecending, and do so in a way that doesn’t screw with the market and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.
Really take a good hard look at some of the Dems sacred elephants and be willing to make some major changes in programs that just aren’t working…have REAL solutions to these problems, even if the real solution is to get rid of a program that just isn’t working. People would respect the Democrats more if they were willing to dump or radically reform some of the social programs in this country that just seem to waste money…I know I would. Don’t merely shrug and say that they are underfunded and have as your plan to ‘fix’ it simply throwing more money at the problem.
-XT
It ain’t liberal enough for me. That’s just more of the same, it won’t change anything. Try gaming it in favor of the poor, and the middle class will benefit (not least, by having less crime to worry about).
Good grief. You’re not chopped liver, you’re just one of the many, many people in this thread to whom I’ve not responded. Your proposals don’t seem to be among the last sixty or seventy posts to the thread; can you point me to them, and I’ll try to give my thoughts on them?
Daniel
Why? Leaving aside for a moment that attempts to ‘game’ the system for ‘the poor’ in the past have been pretty much unmitigated disasters, why is it better to game the system for the poor when the majority of people in this country are middle class? Unless you are working on some other definition of ‘poor’ of course. Why would it be better to select a minority of citizens and ‘game the system’ for them. What would be the benifits for society as a whole? Rob from the Rich and the Middle Class and give to the poor (substitute ‘game’ for ‘rob’ if it makes you feel better) will have what effect exactly on the prosperity of the country as a whole? What will the poor do with this windfall…and how will it substantially benifit society as a whole, aside from (perhaps) ‘less crime’?
And in the context of the thread, how is pandering to a minority while screwing over a majority going to win you more elections?
-XT
Indeed. It was John Kennedy, after all, who slashed the marginal tax rate (taxes on the wealthiest people), which had grown to 90% when he took office. Bill Clinton slashed welfare and balanced the budget (more or less). Democrats need to shake off the socialism stigma. This ain’t France.
I was thinking in terms of Europe, with its social-democratic welfare state – where they have higher unemployment than we have here, but also considerably less poverty. I don’t call that an “unmitigated disaster,” I call it a much better social bargain than the one we have made for ourselves. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=286068
As for why – well, serving the (immediate) interests of the numerical majority and solving our social problems are not always the same thing, are they? And the existence of large numbers of poor people in America is a major social problem by definition. (YMMV, but that premise seems to me much too obvious even to require a defense.) And it causes other problems which affect the middle class, of which crime is only one (see the above-linked thread).
Never said it would. But it’s what’s best for our society, and if we’re not going to try do that, what’s the point of winning elections anyway?
That’s the problem, dude!