Then quote the parts you object to and give your explanations as to why it’s wrong.
This is Great debates. Participate.
Quoting a hard leftist like Reich is not participating, its parroting.
Bullshit.
Like I said, you quote the parts you wish to refute and provide your arguments.
Bullshit yourself. The person who quoted Reich needs to back up his or her argument.
I disagree with him because he’s a hard-left political hack because I disagree with him.
The first rule of Tautology Club…
Accusing Reich of being a “hard leftist” is nothing more than even more extreme partisan rhetoric that means that we should simply dismiss your complaints and begin to ignore your posts until you choose to participate with facts and logic instead of groundless name calling.
Whether i see it or not? Nah. That is you just throwing up nonsense to avoid having to address the issues.
If Reich is wrong, you should be able to explain why. Your tactics indicate that you have no actual rebuttal to his points. Perhaps you are simply afraid that his facts and logic are superior to yours.
Be serious Tom. Do you really think that Reich is neutral?
No ne said he was neutral. You have yet to explain why you think he’s wrong.
No, you have to explain why you think he’s right.
Well, I personally believe that the “paid-what-your-worth” argument is fundamentally misleading because it ignores power, overlooks institutions, and disregards politics. As such, it lures the unsuspecting into thinking nothing whatever should be done to change what people are paid, because nothing can be done.
I was never arguing one way or the other. You dismissed the article out of hand and refuse to make an argument as to where he’s wrong and why you’re right.
Where did you dig up that red herring? The issue is not whether Reich is neutral or holds a political position. Over the years, I have both agreed with some of his positions and disagreed with others.
In this discussion, you simply dismissed an article he wrote as if it could have no bearing on the topic with the utterly absurd claim that he was "hard left. Even Michael Harrington, someone who truly was “hard left,” was capable of making meaningful observations regarding economy and working people. To stand to the Right of someone as freakish as Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck and dismiss Reich as being “hard left” without addressing his actual observations is nothing more than running away from the discussion.
I did, at length. You either ducked the arguments, dismissed them without addressing them, or moved the goalposts. I figured perhaps citing an very accomplished public figure pointing out the absurdity of your position might make you realize how foolish you are being. I guess I was wrong.
There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Reich based on the content. Simply disagreeing based on who he is seems pretty sloppy.
So Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck are “freakish”, but Reich’s “observations” are valid?
I think a better response to this would be to request a summary of your link. A drive by link can be dismissed because there is no content. The only way to interpret what you are saying is that you are asserting that people are in fact not paid what they are worth. Except you didn’t quote anything from the article. It has nothing to do with Reich - and everything to do with the lack of content.
I noticed that also.
I have no idea whether Reich’s opinions ar “valid.” His are not, however, stupid, cruel, and based on ignorance and hatred in the manner routinely displayed by Coulter and Beck, both of whom routinely demonstrate ignorance and dishonesty in their statements. It would take a position to the Right of either of them to see Reich as belonging to the “hard left.” He is more likely centrist or slightly Left of center, but he is not “hard Left.”
Let’s look at what was actually stated in the linked Reich piece.
From the get go, Reich equivocates on people being paid what they are worth, and what people are worth. I don’t know if that’s intentional, but it’s distracting and not an accurate portrayal of the idea that he’s trying to combat. In addition, he gets the core of the saying wrong. It’s not that people are paid what they are worth, they are paid what the value of their work product is worth.
Reich goes on to compare historical GM workers to current Walmart workers, and concludes that the reason both relatively low skilled folks are paid so much different in real terms is because of the decline of unions. Reich doesn’t talk about the disparity in alternatives for those workers at their respective times. No, it must simply be unions.
Reich then switches gears to highly compensated CEOs and calls out a corporate subsidy with no support. He puts it out there as if it’s an established fact. He then ponders if this is because these folks make large political contributions. There is no actual evidence or connection, just…high paid CEOs are bad, and political contributions are bad. Right.
Then, his conclusion:
I think Reich has a definitional problem. And it’s with the word “worth”. The fact that Reich doesn’t define how he’s using this term undercuts his entire premise. If I define “worth” as what a person is paid in a voluntary transaction, then Reich is wrong. He didn’t state how he’s using it, and it seems he’s using the term in some non-standard way. So, do you think his positions are valid?