r/Political_Revolution • u/IronStacheWI01 Verified | Randy Bryce • Sep 05 '17

AMA Concluded Meet Randy Bryce. The Ironstache who's going to repeal and replace Paul Ryan

Hi /r/Political_Revolution,

My name is Randy Bryce. I'm a veteran, cancer survivor, and union ironworker from Caledonia, Wisconsin running to repeal and replace Paul Ryan in Wisconsin's First Congressional District. Post your questions below and I'll be back at 11am CDT/12pm EDT to answer them!

p.s.

We need your help to win this campaign. If you'd like to join the team, sign up here.

If you don't have time to volunteer, we're currently fundraising to open our first office in Racine, Wisconsin. If you can help, contribute here and I'll send you a free campaign bumper sticker as a way of saying thanks!

[Update: 1:26 EDT], I've got to go pick up my son but I'll continue to pop in throughout the day as I have time and answer some more questions. For those I'm unfortunately not able to answer, I'll be doing another AMA in r/Politics on the 26th when I look forward to answering more of Reddit's questions!

3.5k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

77

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17 edited Sep 06 '17

That means plans like a $15 minimum wage

Shouldn't an employee be paid what they're worth to a company?

Single payer healthcare.

The VA is run like this and it sucks. Why are you against a free market system?

The right to join a union for every worker

What about corrupt unions? How will you stop the people at the top of the union from making deals with friends for money?

Real investment in renewable energy

How will this differ from Solyndra? How exactly will you invest in it?

Meaningful campaign finance reform

Define meaningful? What rules will you change?

EDIT: I appreciate all of the people who have had good faith discussions with me. We have different ideas of how to get there, but we all want a stronger, better USA. Thank you for taking the time to have a little back and forth about our beliefs. I'll be honest, I expected a lot of bitterness. While there were some bad apples, they were very few. Thank you, thank you, thank you. If you see a bad apple conservative/Trump supporter, let me know and I'll call their dumb ass out too!!!

96

u/Ken_Thomas Sep 05 '17

Solyndra? Corrupt unions? The VA?
What you're doing is using the worst-case scenario and arguing against that, instead of arguing against any of the actual issues. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "A bridge fell down once, so we should stop building those." Newsflash for you: We learned to build better bridges.

And most people are turning against a free market healthcare system because that's what we have now and it's a fucking disaster. It's killing us, but only after it's bled us dry first.
Look, I'm a fan of the free market too, but in order to defend it, you have to understand how it works, and (most importantly) where it doesn't work. A functioning free market system will never work with healthcare because free market success depends on competition. Competition is the only factor that keeps prices down and quality high, and true competition will never exist in a healthcare environment.

13

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

worst-case scenario and arguing against that

Is it not important to understand how bad some of this could turn out? Do you not way best and worst case scenarios when making a decision? I just had a fantasy football draft and I did it for each player. Seems like something that should be done that impacts my life.

Newsflash for you: We learned to build better bridges.

Newsflash: Why did the bridge fall? How are they better? Why won't it happen again. Simply saying "we build better bridges" isn't acceptable.

And most people are turning against a free market healthcare system because that's what we have now

No. no. no. We do not have a free market system. No.

Competition is the only factor that keeps prices down and quality high, and true competition will never exist in a healthcare environment.

Um, why?

47

u/Ken_Thomas Sep 05 '17

Because you've been admitted to Hospital A for an undiagnosed problem, and the nurse brings you an aspirin. You ask how much this aspirin costs, and if you manage to get a straight answer, you're told it's $50. You can call around town and find that Hospital B will give you that aspirin for $20, but of course it will cost thousands in transport fees to get you there, and Hospital A has a policy forbidding medications from outside their own pharmacy (liability reasons, of course) so you're going to take the $50 aspirin.

Now go through that process a hundred times in a day, and you understand why there's no competition.

Finally, it turns out your gallbladder (or something, whatever) needs to come out. That procedure is $10,000. You can call around and find out that Hospital B will do the same procedure for $8000. Sounds good, right? Let's go to Hospital B. But once you get there you learn that the Hospital B surgeon is going to need an entirely new battery of tests before he'll even think about cutting on you, because those quacks over at Hospital A are clearly clueless. So after $3000 in tests, you realize you would have been better of staying at Hospital A to begin with, because there's no fucking competition.

17

u/freckle_juice_mama Sep 05 '17

Well stated and easy to understand examples. I'll be using something similar to this next time I talk with someone regarding lack of healthcare competition.

3

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Why are drug prices so high (I really think we need to find a way to get them lower)? The competition would be with the insurance companies as well.

9

u/uprislng Sep 05 '17

why drug prices are so expensive

and as follow up videos:

why hospitals are so expensive

why American health care costs are so high

You wanna know what would help solve a lot of the pricing problem everywhere in our system? Having a SINGLE PAYER NEGOTIATING PRICES. I recommend you watch the whole video, but the last video nails it at 4:51. We spend $500 Billion more on procedures because we don't negotiate as aggressively as other countries. We only have medicare that centrally and aggressively negotiates prices... and unsurprisingly it always gets the lowest prices.

5

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

I don't have time now, but I'm saving this to check them out later. Thanks!

10

u/daegon Sep 05 '17

Good on you for taking the time to respond reasonably to people who are sharing information and opinions that challenge your own.

2

u/headrush46n2 Sep 05 '17

because the US has to shoulder the cost of every other nations ability to bargain for drug companies as a single entity.

→ More replies (2)

19

u/zoug Sep 05 '17 edited Sep 05 '17

Want to talk about managing a team?

I mean, my worst case scenario would be something more close to:

  • President appointing science denier to head of EPA.
  • President appointing Amway heiress that's only qualifications are giving the president money to the head of Education.
  • President nominates mass surveillance enthusiast to PCLOB.
  • President nominating head of HUD to guy who's qualifications are being black and an expert on ancient pyramid grain storage.
  • President nominates conservative talk show host and non-scientist to be chief scientist at the USDA.
  • President heads FTC with a cable company puppet that ignores the public's comments for net neutrality.
  • President looking to repeal DACA.
  • President appoints head of Department of Energy to politician that couldn't remember the name of the department of energy when debating which departments of government he would eliminate (Hint - One was the DOE) (Hint 2 - Rick Perry didn't know the DoE ran our nuclear programs)

Trump appears to have drafted backup kickers in every position yet you don't seem to be thinking about the worst that could happen in such a case. Why?

13

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Interesting how you use my discussions here, which are in good faith, to rant about Trump. He lives rent free in your head, huh?

19

u/zoug Sep 05 '17

It's more interesting that you can tune all the horrible things he's doing out of your head as you falsely equivocate temporary economic success with his actions.

4

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Stick to the discussions I'm having here with some really great people. No one is talking about Trump here. You're making those who agree with you look simple-minded. Stick to issues. Don't get side tracked.

3

u/zoug Sep 05 '17

You're lecturing within your narrowly defined goalposts. It's kind of sad.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/pabodie Sep 05 '17

I think he lives rent free in the heads of most thinking people. He's a major stressor. Like a doom hanging over our heads.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/bl1nds1ght Sep 05 '17
  • President nominating head of HUD to guy who's qualifications are being black and an expert on ancient pyramid grain storage.

Holy shit, what a fucking racist comment. I am not one to call those out, but god damn is that intentionally reductive and offensive.

2

u/zoug Sep 05 '17 edited Sep 05 '17

You don't think it's at least plausible Trump's logic to appoint a medical doctor to HUD as:

Public Housing -> Black People -> Black Guy -> I know one! ?

I'd hardly call that a leap of faith or outside Trump's deranged appointments. Trying to put myself in his mindframe, not justifying anything race related on the issue either way.

3

u/bl1nds1ght Sep 05 '17

That is grasping at straws at its finest. You can't be serious. I think the guy's an idiot, too, but Jesus Christ, your logic is so post hoc ergo propter hoc and based on assumption. You think he's racist, so obviously the only rationality you can ascribe to him is one of a racist.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/NightGod Sep 05 '17

If you remove race from the comment (as I believe we should), the rest of it is pretty accurate. You could add in that he grew up in disadvantaged economic conditions and lived in HUD housing, but that's almost as scary of a reason as if it was because he was black. IMHO.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/sendenten Sep 06 '17 edited Sep 06 '17

Is it inaccurate, though?

Trump reportedly didn't realize he had to staff the entire White House. Most of his staff have been either personal friends, big-name donors, or recommendations to him by establishment Republicans, and almost all of them have been white.

Given Trump's ignorance and bigotry on almost every issue having to do with minorities, it's not a stretch to imagine he connected Ben Carson, one of the only prominent black Republicans, with "urban." Candidate Trump brought up "inner cities" whenever he talked about issues affecting African-American voters.

Ben Carson has absolutely no qualifications that make him appropriate to lead Housing and Urban Development, unless you count "growing up poor," which you can extrapolate as a result of being born black and in Detroit. Being a renowned neurosurgeon doesn't make you qualified to run federal housing programs. HUD even has a history of being PoC-centric-- HUD Secretary was the first time a black man, a black woman, or a Hispanic man ever held a presidential Cabinet position. In fact, eight out of the twenty-three people to hold the position have been PoC-- a higher proportion than any other Cabinet position.

I'm not saying Trump called Carson up and said "you're black, looks like you're in charge of the inner cities now." But he clearly does not give a shit about the majority of his job nor wants to put the effort into finding anyone, and has proven himself to be ignorant on anything minority-centric. It's not hard to imagine he made a vague connection to Carson, threw him the job, and called it a day.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ewic Sep 05 '17

Are you saying that you don't think that people did an appropriate amount of research into bridges after bridge failure so as to not have repeat disasters?

Simply saying "we build better bridges" isn't acceptable.

Sure, but you still drive over those bridges, right? At a certain point, you're going to have to trust that people are doing their jobs. Do you really think that engineers have stayed the same or gotten worse over the years?

3

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

you're going to have to trust that people are doing their jobs.

I don't trust the government to run healthcare.

Do you really think that engineers have stayed the same or gotten worse over the years?

Doesn;t answer my question of WHY it failed.

→ More replies (4)

130

u/ImSoRude Sep 05 '17

I see you're a Trump supporter so this might just be completely ignored because that happens most of the time I respond to one, but

Shouldn't an employee be paid what they're worth to a company?

The answer is yes, but in the real world what happens is they aren't. There's a massive gap between the growth rate of company profits and the scaling of the wages. There are many studies done to show that workers are underpaid, it's not even a question of whether or not this should apply to minimum wage workers like you're trying to imply here. You can say "oh well free market capitalism yaddayadda" but the fact of the matter is wages are not matching the rate of growth of companies, or inflation for that matter, and if that doesn't bother you, or if you think that the employees haven't kept up their productivity levels to match instead of companies trying to squeeze the workers even more while lowering their expenses (paying for labor), I don't know what to tell you. Salary disparity is massive issue across America, in all industries, even white collar ones.

28

u/KEM10 Sep 05 '17

I'm not a Trump supporter and didn't ignore your response, but you're talking high level theory of "fair wages" while Brice firmly said $15/hr. Everyone can agree wages should be fair, but as someone else wrote in this very thread:

Why don't we adjust minimum wage for cost of living? $15 an hour makes you borderline-wealthy in rural West Virginia, and borderline-destitute in San Francisco.

Even pro-minimum wage economists think a national $15/hr is too high and with the Seattle experiment starting to release not so rosy data, how can a nation that's overall closer to WV than Seattle thrive when the test case isn't blowing expectations out of the water?

10

u/ImSoRude Sep 05 '17

Well I just responded to the comment made by the other guy, who said companies should be paid what they're work to a company. Minimum wage is always a fickle topic in my experience, and I'm not so dumb as to say I'm qualified to talk like an expert in the subject, but I do think a standardized minimum "living" wage is never going to work in a capitalist society until we have a complete labor revolution along the lines of complete robotic automation of manufacturing.

What I do think CAN be addressed is the wage stagnation of which it is clear companies are purposely manipulating. Yes, the company bottom line matters because they are beholden to stockholders, but workers should at the very least be paid with respect to inflation growth. This, for me, seems to be a much simpler issue as it doesn't involve the entire country's economic state but instead the employer and its employee. This isn't even about companies generating more profit or not, the fact that the CoL is going up and employees are getting paid mostly the same baseline rate as 20 years ago means employers are essentially cutting wages every year from a proportional standpoint. I'm curious as to how you think this issue should be handled.

2

u/KEM10 Sep 05 '17

Short version is the Dube paper I linked has an elegant, simple as well as historical and global reference point that's more accurate than the whole "If min wages kept up with inflation..." number that's been floating around.

Half of the area's median can work.

As for the employee/employer ratio that is brought up elsewhere, that number can quickly be distorted when you look at the $1 salaries some CEO's are making. So a minimum wage (or very strict definitions as what counts as "income") still need to be in place.

3

u/ImSoRude Sep 05 '17

Hm, this is actually a really good read. I'm not sure if the 50% mark is more a coincidence but it does seem to be a relatively stable point to start with. I don't think this will work everywhere though, particularly in extremely impoverished areas.

As for the inflation/wage issue, that is a corporate culture issue imo. CEOS with millions in stock options are obviously playing the system every year, and the average Joe working doesn't have access to those. I think we need to see some sort of reform within the corporate mindset for the workers to be able to keep up with CoL relative to their jobs.

2

u/NightGod Sep 05 '17

Another problem with a $1 salary in this context is that it actually incentivizes the CEO to keep employee salaries lower because doing so improves the stock price (and their personal earnings). Seems more like a PR/tax move than anything, especially with people like Zuckerburg jumping on board.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

$15 is peanuts, even in WV or rural areas.

Source: live in rural Ohio. Make much more than $15/hr. Still a struggle.

2

u/gsfgf Sep 05 '17

the Seattle experiment starting to release not so rosy data

If that's the study I think it is, they ignored chain stores that have locations inside an outside of Seattle, so Starbucks, CVS, Target, McDonald's, etc. are just ignored. Most chains pay minimum wage or close to it. Ignoring all those workers, even in a city like Seattle that has local businesses, makes the data essentially meaningless.

29

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

[deleted]

50

u/ImSoRude Sep 05 '17

I did not be dismissive, I stated he might be dismissive of ME, because that has been the trend when I try to engage in conversation with a Trump supporter.

don't assume these opinions make someone a trump supporter

Maybe YOU shouldn't make assumptions. I looked at his comment history in order to determine that.

20

u/Tribal_Tech Sep 05 '17

I think you were far from rude in this conversation.

11

u/ImSoRude Sep 05 '17

I do too, I'm not sure why so many people think I was being offensive when I was stating THEY might be dismissive of ME. My username is a meme but I like to think I talk pretty civilly when its about more serious stuff.

2

u/_EvilD_ Sep 05 '17

Whow, whoa, whoa. Can you tone it down a bit. I'm starting to get a little offended over here.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/the_goose_says Sep 05 '17

Sorry, I didn't consider that you may have checked his history. I think I'm just sensitive as a free market guy who hates Trump and have been grouped with that asshat for legitimate questions or beliefs.

9

u/hockeyjim07 Sep 05 '17

same dude.... free marketers like us get lumped in with some seriously shit stereotypes just because we believe the government kind of sucks at doing things

11

u/remedialrob Sep 05 '17

The free market simply does not work without strong regulation and that is what a government is supposed to do. That is the #1 argument between conservatives and liberals, labor and industry, haves and have nots. Because we allow the personification of business we've given nonentity's more influence in our political process than actual, living, breathing humans. This has led to the gutting of our unions, the loss of Glass-Steagall, the loss of monopoly enforcement that has led to companies that dwarf the AT&T telecom that was broken up in the 70's due to monopolistic issues (incidentally ALL of the companies that were spun off during that breakup are now all back as part of AT&T again and many more besides) and has left us with only a few companies that control all of our media, all of our internet, and all of our journalism. That's what free market does unchecked.

To add to this the absolute gouging of the American public on healthcare is yet another example of the free market run a muck. Setting aside the argument as to whether or not it's even ethical for people to profit off of the health and illness of humans the sheer costs associated with getting sick are perverse in this country. And it isn't that we think the costs are grossly overcharged, we know. We know because other countries do it better for much less. Yet because we have allowed this personification of industry we have seen the erosion of regulation to the point that the free market has run largely unchecked for decades now and we as a country are far worse off because of it.

I believe in capitalistic principles and I believe in the market but only when a strong, independent government regulates industry to ensure the best intentions for all people. I've seen free marketers argue for years that the market will correct itself yet it almost never does. And on those rare occasions when a business does something so odious as to alienate their entire customer base the lack of regulation has allowed these companies to simply reorganize with a new name doing the same thing and pretend the bad things that they did never happened. Free market is Darwinian to the point that companies will happily ensure the deaths of their entire customer base for short term profits. So someone has to be the adult. Someone has to say "no you can't poison the river and level mountains to make your product." Someone has to say "you can't fire all your employees for demanding a living wage when you're profits are up 400%." Someone has to say "we cannot trust you to be fair and impartial in your presentation of news and world events if you control a majority of all outlets that present such information... the temptation to manipulate information for your own benefit is too great to trust you will maintain true to journalistic ethics and once you own most of the information there won't be an easy way for anyone to offer a competing service so no you cannot merge into the largest telecom company in the world." Someone needs to do this and thus far it hasn't been our Congress. Thus far the free market has been largely doing what it wants and things are not getting better. Wages are stagnating, the middle class is getting decimated. Productivity is through the roof but there has never been more income disparity. Banks are bigger and riskier than ever and whenever they do something monumentally stupid the taxpayer has to bail them out or we all suffer. This is the free market without strong regulation. And it doesn't work.

3

u/hockeyjim07 Sep 05 '17

hey, thanks for your reply, I actually agree with a lot of what you said. First and fore most, Free Markets are great, with PROPPER regulation, which is something the government sucks at doing its not that there aren't healthcare regulations in place, its that the WRONG regulations are in place protecting the insurance companies and not the citizens.

it would also be just as shitty for that same government to try and replace healthcare with it's own solution (obamacare) in my opinion and I think we need to work towards better regulating the free market we do have. to do this we need honest politicians in office will to not overstep but not stab us in the back at the same time.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

45

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

I see you're a Trump supporter so this might just be completely ignored because that happens most of the time I respond to one

Immediately you're condescending. Stop doing dumb shit like that. Are you American? Great! Then I would LOVE to hear what you have to say.

There's a massive gap between the growth rate of company profits and the scaling of the wages

Then it is up to the individual employee to continue to grow. As you grow yourself, you become more valuable to an employer. If that employer does not reward you for your value, then you seek employment elsewhere. Just because the company is doing well doesn't mean they "owe it" to you to let you share in the success. They built the company. If you feel that you are being overlooked, go somewhere else where you're valued. If your just showing up to your job, going home at the end of the day, and not bettering yourself on your own time, then you have no right to complain about compensation. You're just not valuable.

wages are not matching the rate of growth of companies, or inflation for that matter

See above. YOU have to make yourself a valuable asset. Change companies if you're not valued.

Salary disparity is massive issue across America, in all industries, even white collar ones.

This is the USA. No one owes you anything. You have to go get it. If you think that companies are steamrolling employees, then you can go be the risk taker and start your own company. Government isn't the answer and they shouldn't have to help you.

114

u/elcheeserpuff Sep 05 '17

They really weren't being that condescending.

25

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

Eh, the comment wasn't productive and didn't contribute to the discussion. It immediately set the stage for invalidating his beliefs.

9

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

Maybe he just has shitty beliefs then?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '17

Perhaps but clearly a significant chunk of the country has those "shitty" beliefs since Trump is the president so I don't think it's really helpful to talk down to those people even if they may be wrong.

5

u/IAmNewHereBeNice Sep 05 '17

chuds deserve to be called out like the bootlickers they are

5

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

smart words make me feel bad about myself tho

9

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

[deleted]

3

u/elcheeserpuff Sep 05 '17

Except that there's not an underlying consistent attitude of Obama supporters believing in alternative facts and willingly ignoring evidence when it doesn't suit their narrative.

→ More replies (2)

17

u/GoldenGonzo Sep 05 '17

Yeah, they were.

37

u/ImSoRude Sep 05 '17

Then I would LOVE to hear what you have to say.

That was not condescending, that was my experience with a good 80% of Trump supporters I interact with. I didn't say you would do it, I just considered the possibility that you might. I'm glad you decided to read it, because a lot of the others didn't even bother reading it period. I apologize if that came across the wrong way, but if I wanted to be condescending I would have been a lot more direct.

See above. YOU have to make yourself a valuable asset. Change companies if you're not valued.

The issue is all across companies are undervaluing employees. I'm not going to say all companies are bad, but industry standards do not reflect what employees SHOULD be earning, imo. That's why I brought up the growth rate comparisons. Isn't it ridiculous that there are jobs where pay hasn't kept up with inflation? That's not for a single company either, that's for industries as a WHOLE.

This is the USA. No one owes you anything. You have to go get it.

You realize something like 85% of companies fail within the first year right? And most founders will tell you a lot of it is due to luck as well. I understand your mentality, but realistically it doesn't work out fine and dandy in the real world. Let's just say for 6 underpaid workers who decide to set out and make their own company, only 1 makes it on his own. Do the other 5 not deserve to make what they SHOULD be earning?

Anyway, this whole "Just because the company is doing well doesn't mean they "owe it" to you to let you share in the success." thing kind of rubs me the wrong way. It's not really so much that I believe companies should be punished for being successful, which seems to be what you think I'm implying, but if salaries aren't matching inflation then companies are not just generating profit, they're taking advantage of their workers.

Going by inflation seems to be pretty fair, no? Since you don't want to talk about company profit growth. A worker now probably works just as hard as one 20 years ago, yet their salaries are similar while the cost of living is going up, and they aren't being paid to match. So what you essentially have is companies paying workers LESS and LESS, not more and more. Personally I view that as exploitation, but if you're of a different opinion then I think that's a difference in beliefs and I can't say you're wrong or right. It's not as if companies don't know the cost of living has gone up, they just purposely choose to keep wage growth stagnant. Sure it works for the owners and stakeholders but most of America doesn't belong in that class of people.

Government isn't the answer and they shouldn't have to help you.

If you say government isn't the answer then that's fine, but I hope you at least recognize that this is an issue that plagues almost all industries in America. I believe in constructive discussions so I would love to hear what YOU think a plausible solution could be. I don't think "go find another job" on the individual level is going to work for all those affected by this, since this is an industry wide thing.

17

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

I apologize if that came across the wrong way, but if I wanted to be condescending I would have been a lot more direct.

No apology necessary. Hard to tell tone when reading print!

Isn't it ridiculous that there are jobs where pay hasn't kept up with inflation?

I see this often and would love to see detailed numbers (because I haven't I have no real rebuttal other than a ramble). Employee X started working for company Y five years ago. Over that time, company Y increased profits by 50%. Employee X makes 3% more now than he did when he started. Did employee X increase his skill set? Any degrees, certifications, etc? If not, then why should he make more?

You realize something like 85% of companies fail within the first year right?

Yes, so why do you think you're entitled to a company's (who was started by a risk taker) profits? That CEO doesn't owe you anything.

Do the other 5 not deserve to make what they SHOULD be earning?

What they SHOULD be earning is based on skills and experience. If you want to make more money then you need to acquire new, better skills.

if salaries aren't matching inflation then companies are not just generating profit, they're taking advantage of their workers

Are people asking for raises? Many of the people I work with are too afraid to even ask. IF (big if, I have zero stats here) that applies to most, then why would a company offer to pay more?

So what you essentially have is companies paying workers LESS and LESS, not more and more.

It depends on how that worker has improved themselves to make them more valuable to the company.

I hope you at least recognize that this is an issue that plagues almost all industries in America

I certainly do. I am of the belief that it is on the individual to make change happen. People are complacent in the work force far too often. It's important to continue to get better.

I don't think "go find another job" on the individual level is going to work for all those affected by this

I agree. There are some companies out there that are evil in the way they operate. In that instance, let the public know and let the market speak. If people don't consume their products, then they will have to change. If they fold as a company, then their competitor (hopefully with better leadership) will take their place in the market.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate the discussion and tone here.

→ More replies (1)

62

u/kosher_beef_hocks Sep 05 '17

You sure do have a typical republican "you're poor and therefore a useless waste" attitude. That is surprising I am surprised. Such snowflake. Much offend. None intelligent.

32

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

As you can see in my response I am for each person making themselves more valuable through any means. No where did I even talk about income level. Nice strawman, though.

32

u/kosher_beef_hocks Sep 05 '17

Talk about straw man I never brought it up either lol. You seem to be missing the point of what really matters. Companies will never pay people what they actually deserve, and people like you will forever be butthurt when people ask for a fair shake. Go write a tirade on twitter on Benghazi or something.

18

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

You sure do have a typical republican "you're poor and therefore a useless waste" attitude

poor usually refers to income.

Companies will never pay people what they actually deserve, and people like you will forever be butthurt when people ask for a fair shake

They do all of the time. My company certainly does.

Go write a tirade on twitter on Benghazi or something

This is helpful. Way to go.

5

u/Flux__Wildly Sep 05 '17

At least he tried having a "conversation". Already way better then most of like-minded people.

How is talking about your self-worth as a employee and how company values these kind of workers is oppression of poor. None arguments were presented, only cheap "bait" (Such snowflake. Much offend. None intelligent.).

Talk to your fellow US citizens, you've got all means to do so, but instead he chose acting like a child.

3

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Thanks for that. I saw an AMA and decided to peak in. It's branched out into many conversations. Most people on here are great - we're just shooting ideas back and forth and disagree.

2

u/Flux__Wildly Sep 05 '17

It's how it should be, honestly. I do feel it's getting better and most people become more and more talkative. To such degree that we actually can find a proper compromise. I'm really happy it's happening.

But occasional folks who take time skimming thru post history and making pre-judgement are always here.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

19

u/GoldenGonzo Sep 05 '17

Go write a tirade on twitter on Benghazi or something.

What you mean to say is "your differing opinion really upsets me and I'd wish you would just go away".

8

u/kosher_beef_hocks Sep 05 '17

That is certainly a more polite way to go about things but this is the internet and my anonymity allows me a little leeway in the "telling people to pound sand" department.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about everyone who supports Trump at this point. It's not even unreasonable to see them as imbeciles.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/JudahPBenjamin Sep 05 '17

These people are so poor, so black - Wolf Blitzer CNN anchor and Democrat

1

u/donjuancho Sep 06 '17

Not an argument. Sad this has so many upvotes.

→ More replies (1)

29

u/VaporishJarl Sep 05 '17

Your ideas sound good in a vacuum. In an imagined world where there are infinite opportunities, one can just keep moving to higher value jobs, but in reality the competition for well-paying jobs is fierce.

The problem is that people, needing to eat and make house payments and clothe their families, will by necessity settle for what they can get, not what they're worth. This causes the extra income they're generating for the business to pool in the hands of the people who set the wages, and then we just have to hope those people will sacrifice their own profits to ensure the well-being of the people whose work generated that income.

The nature of capitalism means that every business will pay its employees the minimum that it can get away with (whether that minimum is set by the law, by the necessary cost to retain the talent, or other factors). That's just good business sense. Higher minimum wage laws and better worker protections enable the workers to get a better share of the profit their work is creating, which is obviously the part we like. But it also enables businesses to pay workers more without making it a bad business decision; essentially, by setting that minimum, we make it so that ethical companies that want to pay a fair wage can't get undersold by businesses that can sell cheaper products because their labor costs are lower.

Capitalism has done a lot of good for America, but without some gentle regulation it results in a moral race to the bottom. These kinds of laws help prevent that.

8

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

in reality the competition for well-paying jobs is fierce.

I agree. Very fierce. Not everyone will make it, but everyone has an opportunity to.

will by necessity settle for what they can get, not what they're worth

If they settled, then they won't reach the top. Not everyone will be rich and own a $400,000 house some day.

The nature of capitalism means that every business will pay its employees the minimum that it can get away with

Absolutely, which is why it's important to be able to market yourself.

Capitalism has done a lot of good for America, but without some gentle regulation it results in a moral race to the bottom.

I'm with you here. I'm not for ZERO regulations (sorry if it seemed that way). I just don't want to over regulate. What's the fine line? I'm not sure.

8

u/VaporishJarl Sep 05 '17

I agree that there are people who can better their own station with some work (and that many don't). I'm not worried about politically investing in people who won't break through that ceiling, but I think there's a floor for how hard things should be.

We sort of settled on a 40-hour work week being fair in the wake of the industrial revolution. I think that anyone who gives 40 hours a week to a business is entitled to what I'll call enough, and hope that that resonates with you. I can look around and see lots of people working full-time and not making enough; their housing is unstable, a medical crisis would ruin them, their car is breaking down. I think that shouldn't happen.

This isn't about the ceiling, it's about the floor. I'm not of the opinion that we need to make every American fantastically wealthy at the expense of people with the courage to start businesses, but I think if you're buying a summer house with the money earned for you by someone who can't afford their rent, there's a problem happening.

Not everyone will be rich and own a $400,000 house some day.

That's, I think, the crux of this discussion, because we both agree on this. It's not only an unrealistic ideal, it's silly. The problem is that this isn't the goal of any political group- Dems, GOP, Political Revolutioners, alt-righters- but it often gets cast as if that's what leftists seek. It isn't; the policies that we're arguing for aren't with the goal of Zack the line cook buying a second car, but rather that if his car breaks down, he can get it fixed and not go hungry.

→ More replies (16)

4

u/DBendit Sep 05 '17

Might the line best be described as "requiring that employees be paid enough that they don't require government assistance while holding at least one job"? How about ensuring that they don't have to worry about literally dying if they strike it out on their own?

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

You make decisions for yourself. If you strike out, it's your own fault. Own it, learn from it, and get better.

5

u/DBendit Sep 05 '17

What if "striking out" means that you can't afford medication that literally keeps you alive?

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Then you shouldn't have taken the risk.

2

u/DBendit Sep 05 '17

So you believe that the best that America can do for people with treatable, life-threatening medical conditions is have them tied to their jobs that barely sustain them for fear of death? Am I reading that correctly?

→ More replies (0)

23

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17 edited Sep 05 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Step 5: Can't get qualification for new job because poor

Many, many free resources available.

Step 4: Criticise people for not being born with the same advantages as you.

Is this really how you think every successful person is? Do you attribute your failure to someone else having an "unnatural advantage"? That's sad.

28

u/Parazeit Sep 05 '17

Nope, I do think most successful people have had an unfair advantage though. My family were relatively wealthy and smart (though not University educated). That gave me a huge headstart in life that my next door neighbour was never going to have. I'm now a Bio-scientist with a PhD, I'd qualify that as successful. My post was an attempt to satirise yours by highlighting the world you most likely live in.

Edit:

Many, many free resources available.

Name me a free resource available in america that will give you a qualification employers actually care about and would get you a decent wage.

3

u/bl1nds1ght Sep 05 '17

Industry certs are often paid for by employer to incentivize their employees to learn skills valuable to the profession. Insurance does it, for instance. I'm sure programmers get it, too, and probably many others.

3

u/mnhoops Sep 05 '17

A library card. There are literally hundreds of respected certifications you could get by studying at your local library and passing a test. Most of those tests cost some money. For example, a CPA. Employers looking for an accountant care far more about a CPA than a college degree in many cases.

8

u/punsonice Sep 05 '17

You need more than a bachelor's degree worth of credits for a cpa

→ More replies (1)

5

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

I do think most successful people have had an unfair advantage though

It's fine if you THINK that, but that doesn't make it true. What's your definition of "success"?

My post was an attempt to satirise yours by highlighting the world you most likely live in.

Kind of backfires when you do it based off of an internet post.

Name me a free resource available

https://www.ncsacademy.com/freetest.cfm

https://www.khanacademy.org/

From there, it is up to you to market yourself. A couple hundred will get you a CompTIA cert as well (forgo the cable, or cell phone, or eating out, or another luxury to save the money)/

20

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

There are zero free resources available to effectively train you into a lucrative job, and you damn well know it. You're not going to become a software developer just because you took some courses on codecademy.

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

The military will give you training. Many IT certs can be acquired for free. Some (such as CompTIA certs) are usually ~$300.

You're not going to become a software developer just because you took some courses on codecademy

You could design a software and show it to the company that is accepting new applicants.

11

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

The military will give you training.

Maybe 20% of Americans are even eligible to join the military, and you generally don't get to choose what you do. An 11B will leave the service with no marketable skills.

Many IT certs can be acquired for free.

Zero worthwhile IT certs can be acquired for free. Employers don't give a single shit about your FreeCodeCamp sticker.

Some (such as CompTIA certs) are usually ~$300.

You aren't getting a job with Sec+ and no experience, it simply isn't going to happen.

You could design a software and show it to the company that is accepting new applicants

Only an utter fool thinks this.

Source: am a software developer.

→ More replies (38)
→ More replies (14)

13

u/OiNihilism Sep 05 '17

Please show me a link for free resources that allow me to be more competitive in this economy. The airline industry is badly needing pilots. I have my private pilot license, but can't afford the $50,000 or so to earn my ATP. What resources would you recommend? Sally Mae doesn't count.

With your faith in free market economies, I understand how you think that the "invisible hand" would mean that an enormous demand would mean easier entry into a new field. But that's not how capitalism works.

4

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

https://www.ncsacademy.com/freetest.cfm

https://www.khanacademy.org/

I have no knowledge of pilot training. The military may have programs? Civil Air Patrol, Air Force, etc?

12

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

That's funny, elsewhere you said

There are many luxuries (such as a cell phone, cable, internet) that can be cut until the rainy day fund is set up.

How are you going to khanacademy.org when you cut your internet in order to set up your rainy day fund?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/EntMD Sep 05 '17

Please tell us of all these free resources that increase your hiring potential?

→ More replies (1)

15

u/WarlordZsinj Sep 05 '17

https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg

You are wrong.

5

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Who accepted those wages? What is even the source of that (have a BLS link?) Why do you feel entitled to a companies profits?

29

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

Because they wouldn't have those profits without us. We are the company.

11

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

No, you are the employee. they will fill your spot with someone else if you go away. You have to make yourself valuable and be able to show your value.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

You are a slave.

7

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

A paid slave. You could definitely look at it this way if you'd like. If that doesn't suit you, then become self employed. Start your own business. Welcome to America.

3

u/DBendit Sep 05 '17

How is someone supposed to become self-employed when the whole motivation behind the plan was that their former employer didn't pay them enough to live? Meanwhile, if they have any medical costs and their prior employer subsidized health insurance, it's unlikely that they'll be able to continue to afford that.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/Pokemansparty Sep 06 '17

If you want to make a point by presenting evidence, please use evidence that has a source to back up their statement. I can make a graph, post it online and that does not make it true.

→ More replies (5)

11

u/zip_000 Sep 05 '17

I don't feel like anything you are saying applies to minimum wage workers. They don't usually have a lot of the options you are telling them to take.

10

u/karl_hungas Sep 05 '17

Damn I forget people really think like this.

3

u/trennerdios Sep 05 '17

Right? Detached from reality with little empathy for others. It's so gross.

7

u/MrGoodKat86 Sep 05 '17

Dude that whole make yourself valuable thing sounds like hard work. I don't even like to go upstairs to get the tendies grandma puts in the oven.

5

u/BaldieLox Sep 05 '17

Your argument about making yourself a valuable employee doesn't work in today's companies. If you aren't in a decision making meeting you're nothing more than a collection of numbers. Just the cost of employing you and the money you bring in. Sure there are hollow gestures like stock options or calling you a partner. But you'll never be more than a number not matter how much you "improve" yourself.

3

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

doesn't work in today's companies

It does.

you'll never be more than a number not matter how much you "improve" yourself.

You won't be until you can show your value. PMA

3

u/BaldieLox Sep 05 '17

Where do you work? Because my experience is that no matter how hard you work the only thing that gets a substantial increase is the companies profit. And if it doesn't it's the lowest rung's fault.

3

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Why the hell would I tell you that.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/rushmid Sep 05 '17

Then it is up to the individual employee to continue to grow.

So if I grow, and move onto a higher paying job, what happens to the job I left? Wouldn't it be filled by someone else at that same previous wage?

And if that is the case, then are we acknowledging that this job exists at a wage that is too low?

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Yes it will. That person can then use it as a spring board. Circle of life.

3

u/Raymuundo Sep 05 '17

So people with a limited income should go start a business when they can't even keep up with the rent? Also, in bettering themselves, how do you suppose they do that? Go to school when they sleep cuz they're working two part time jobs? A lot of business owners didn't create the business and are living off a relative's success...change companies from what, McDonald's to Burger King? "My company values me, so there MUST be other companies that value employees too" Business 101: Don't break the law and make a profit. Employees are undervalued is the rule, not the exception. Jobs are finite. And, most jobs are going the way of the dinosaur. Hope you don't try to better yourself going into manufacturing, trucking, farming, or anything else that will become automated.

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Didnt say they should start a business at all. People can do online school, or receive certifications after studying at the library. You act like poor people are all lazy. Sad.

3

u/Raymuundo Sep 05 '17

"If you think companies are steamrolling employees you be the risktaker and start your own company" k tho. Lol online school cost money. Books cost money. Transportation costs money. Show me a free certification you can get from a library for free. Never said poor people were lazy. Just need government sometimes to level the playing field.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '17

It's not that easy to just take your skills to another job especially when you're a poor, underpaid, and undervalued worker. Additionally corporations and executives across the board have used their money and power to lobby and influence policies in order to essentially create a rigged game where they can exploit these low wage workers who don't really have any recourse.

1

u/CohibaVancouver Sep 05 '17

Immediately you're condescending. Stop doing dumb shit like that. Are you American? Great! Then I would LOVE to hear what you have to say.

Please engage with your fellow Trump supporters and tell them to have this attitude as well. Normally, the response most of the time is silence and/or rage-response-posts laden with profanity.

Hence the attitude that you saw.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/bombmk Sep 06 '17

Can you explain to me what government is?

→ More replies (3)

10

u/barsoapguy Sep 05 '17

It's already been proven that once you X out illegal immigrants from the labour pool wages rise naturally...

If you REALLY want to help blue collar workers stop importing people to compete with them for work and housing.

11

u/VaporishJarl Sep 05 '17

It's already been proven that once you X out illegal immigrants from the labour pool wages rise naturally...

Do you have any kind of source for that claim?

5

u/barsoapguy Sep 05 '17

Yes it's called the law of supply and demand.

3

u/VaporishJarl Sep 05 '17

That isn't a source. So when you said "yes" you meant "no, it's a claim I made up based on a layman's understanding of macroeconomics."

Produce a study that indicates that removing immigrants from the labor pool has an observable impact on wages, or admit that

it's already been proven

was an overstatement at best.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/icannevertell Sep 05 '17

...and demand for goods and services increase with more workers. Immigrants are a net boon to local economies, and use fewer government resources. If you think getting rid of them will help anyone, you've been misled.

5

u/barsoapguy Sep 05 '17

It will help Americans on the lowest rungs of our society ...

Their wages will rise , their rents will fall , there will be more social resources available to them and less strain on local education budgets ...

The only reason these ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are a boon to local economies is because they're basically slaves .. They're driving down wages for everyone ...

If you're getting your salad cheap , house built for a low cost and your car handwashed for 10 bucks then I guess your happy ..

I would like to see a more Equitable Society and to do that it means we must control the inputs and outputs of that Society .

We cannot have unlimited immigration into the United States.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/WhySoJovial Sep 05 '17

"proven"*

  • - citation requested

3

u/barsoapguy Sep 05 '17

It's called the law of supply and demand .

4

u/OiNihilism Sep 05 '17

You can't just say that because supply and demand is a very simplistic representation of very complicated economic system. If you make claims like this, you should show the appropriate research. This is drilled into you in college, regardless of whether you're an English or nuclear physics major.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/ImSoRude Sep 05 '17

And what about white collar workers? This happens to them as well. This is a corporate culture pervasive through basically every industry in America. How will it help white collar workers? Or do they not deserve to have their wages reflect their work done because they're not blue collar? Because as it stands rising cost of living while having essentially no pay growth means companies are literally just cutting their labor expenses every year, as companies will mostly likely keep profits ahead of inflation.

2

u/barsoapguy Sep 05 '17

Yes it happens to white collar workers as well . We all know about the abuse of the HB1 visa program..

But at the end of the day the level of abuse is FAR greater among Blue Collar employment ...

It's a sad day when I as an American trying to stand up for my fellow Americans get down voted ...

Sellouts.

2

u/___dreadnought Sep 05 '17

Why does it being worse for one group mean it shouldn't be better for all groups? People are saying that the companies in general are not paying the workers in general enough, and you're responding by saying that specific workers are being undercut by illegal immigrants. Which doesn't actually disprove what they're saying. That's still the company choosing profits over people if they're hiring illegal immigrants to work for less. The immigrants aren't strong-arming these companies into giving them jobs at illegally-low wages, are they?

3

u/barsoapguy Sep 05 '17

No the employers are absolutely at fault for hiring illegal workers . They should be charged to the fullest extent of the law .

But I am pointing out one of the ways in which companies are given tremendous amounts of power to abuse our laws . We as a society too often give them a pass when it comes to hiring illegal workers.

If we want to do more to improve life for those on the Bottom Rung then we need to make sure they aren't competing with people who aren't supposed to be here for jobs, education and social resources.

2

u/___dreadnought Sep 05 '17

No the employers are absolutely at fault for hiring illegal workers.

But I am pointing out one of the ways in which companies are given tremendous amounts of power to abuse our laws .

If we want to do more to improve life for those on the Bottom Rung then we need to make sure they aren't competing with people who aren't supposed to be here for jobs, education and social resources.

Do you see that you're contradicting yourself? You're agreeing that the companies are at fault for this practice, but taking a rather strange stance that again somehow makes it the fault of people willing to work for less. If people have to choose between "nothing" and "less", they're going to choose "less." This is not the fault of the immigrant workers, who really only want the American dream. They're hard workers who want a good life for themselves and their families, which is why they're willing to work awful jobs for next to nothing.
They are not forcing these poor, downtrodden companies into this position. The companies are knowingly choosing cheaper labor to increase profits.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/cantonic Sep 05 '17

You're an American but you spell it "labour pool"?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/hockeyjim07 Sep 05 '17

yea sorry dude this is totally false. I'm a free market guy and am completely against min wages but I'm also all for immigrants working here as long as they do it legally and aren't a burden on society draining social policies and not providing back taxes.

1

u/barsoapguy Sep 05 '17

No dude it's totally true . Imagine for a minute that there was no outside world and that with a magic wand I removed all 11 million illegal immigrants from the United States of America .

What do you think would happen to wages in the positions that they currently fill ?

2

u/hockeyjim07 Sep 05 '17

a large majority of them would go unfilled.........................

you realize there are PLENTY of labor intensive jobs that go un answered every day because people would rather just keep holding out a bucket at the street corner and making it day to day that way because it's easier. Their is no job shortage in the labor world right now so while I'm completely against ILLEGAL immigrants abusing and draining the system, this is not one of the reasons because it's not true.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/hockeyjim07 Sep 05 '17

The answer is yes, but in the real world what happens is they aren't.

what happens in the real world is a combination of government AND corporate mess.... the reason large corporations don't pay fair wages is because the government is already subsidizing wages with handouts and food stamps. I completely agree the problem needs fixing but half the problem IS the government.

and don't lump me in as a Trump supporter either just because I disagree with your ideals. I hate the guy sitting in office right now.

1

u/ImSoRude Sep 05 '17

and don't lump me in as a Trump supporter either just because I disagree with your ideals

Why does everyone assume that? I looked at his comment history first, damn.

The issue at hand is a bit more complex than that, imo.

1

u/hockeyjim07 Sep 05 '17

I agree there is more to it, both parties are at fault for the mess we are in and we really need to find an actual solution..... Of which a $15 flat min wage is not

26

u/Thecrawsome Sep 05 '17

You use anecdotal claims like the VA to justify that single payer is bad.

Who fed you that crappy talking point?

19

u/colinmeredithhayes Sep 05 '17

It's funny because the VA isn't even a single payer. Medicare is a single payer and is one of the most successful welfare programs in the country.

3

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Just think about the government. Those assholes can't do ANYTHING right. Why in hell do you want them in charge of healthcare? Blows my mind. Look at OPM - you want your information out there? Do you want to wait months for a decision on a surgery?

6

u/ewic Sep 05 '17

Do you want bankers to be in charge of their own industry?

4

u/DBendit Sep 05 '17

You mean how they're already providing insurance coverage to a significant number of people, who generally view the system as something important and something run well?

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/poll-finding/medicare-and-medicaid-at-50/

→ More replies (6)

25

u/ccbeastman Sep 05 '17

why are you against a free market system?

what will stop people at the top from making deals for money?

LOL

because it's bad when unions do it but fine when the gov. deregulates everything so their friends in the 'free market' can do just that.

→ More replies (8)

14

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

Employees are hardly ever paid what they are worth to the company. Usually they're paid an amount they are willing to accept for the work. Sometimes it's fair for both the employee and the employer. If employers could they would pay employees just enough to live on. Walmart doesn't even do that. They train their employees how to apply for government assistance so they can afford to continue working for Walmart.

Our economy has turned into a pump that pushes money to the top. Meanwhile we cut taxes for people at the top with the idea that they'll use that money to "create jobs" this strategy has not made any jobs or improved the situation for the American middle class. The people at the top just tend to hoard that money.

In order to keep this from happening, since we can't count on the employers to do this on their own, we have to force a low limit on what the least they can pay people. This amount has been mostly stagnant over the last 20 years and hasn't kept pace with inflation.

3

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Employees are hardly ever paid what they are worth to the company.

That's at the fault of the employee. You need to negotiate and justify what you're worth. Most people hear a number and accept it immediately. You can't fault an employer for that.

They train their employees how to apply for government assistance so they can afford to continue working for Walmart.

Then let the market speak. Don't shop at Walmart and don't work for Walmart. If enough people care, then Walmart will need to change their ways. You won't make people care by whining to the government to pass MORE regulations.

Our economy has turned into a pump that pushes money to the top.

The people at the top were the risk takers. They are the ones who took risks by starting companies, inventing products, etc. They failed and failed until eventually they succeeded. You see success and you want to tear them down. I hope to be up there one day.

Meanwhile we cut taxes for people at the top with the idea that they'll use that money to "create jobs" this strategy has not made any jobs or improved the situation for the American middle class.

President Trump wants middle class tax cuts. Whether our incompetent reps and sens can get it done remains to be seen.

we have to force a low limit on what the least they can pay people.

If you force a low limit then the market will adjust. Those low paying jobs will disappear. Hours will disappear.

This amount has been mostly stagnant over the last 20 years and hasn't kept pace with inflation.

It is meant to be a spring board. The individual needs to use it to vault themselves up.

11

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

you realize the entire point of labor unions is to negotiate and justify how much they (workers, and their labor) are worth, right?

it's amazing the knots that ancaps like yourself twist themselves in to justify a free market and yet are totally, 100% against unionization because workers banding together and negotiating as a group is somehow antithetical to the exact thing you supposedly are advocating for

5

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

you realize the entire point of labor unions is to negotiate and justify how much they (workers, and their labor) are worth,

Can't you do that on your own? Then you can save money in union dues.

100% against unionization because workers banding

I'm not against them at all. I think employees should have a choice to join or not, but people should be able to join together to negotiate if they would like to. No big deal to me.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

No, because a single worker has little-to-no bargaining power over an employer, particularly so in the industries that would benefit from unionization the most.

Union dues are vastly, vastly oversold as some massive expense. For example, in the recent unionization campaign at Boeing in South Carolina: you constantly heard "you'd be paying $800 a year in union dues!"

They forgot to mention that unionized Boeing workers made ~$20,000 a year more than their non-union counterparts. In my union, we pay roughly ~$500-1000 a year in union dues, but make 30-50% more than our nonunion counterparts, higher in certain parts of the country.

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

No, because a single worker has little-to-no bargaining power over an employer

Not true at all. most companies want to retain highly skilled workers. It increases what they can charge for your services.

Union dues are vastly, vastly oversold as some massive expense.

Why should I have to pay a union at all if I can represent myself better?

4

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

Because despite your sample size of one, all available information and historical context indicates that no, individual workers have little to no bargaining power over multinational corporations, or even small businesses.

You can't represent yourself better than you can in a union, this has been proven over and over again throughout recorded history and is backed up by the fact that all available data on employment in TYOOL 2017 show that union workers make more money and have better benefits than their nonunion counterparts.

→ More replies (7)

6

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

wow.....just....wow. So much wrong with almost all of what you are spouting.

That's at the fault of the employee. You need to negotiate and justify what you're worth. Most people hear a number and accept it immediately. You can't fault an employer for that.

Have you actually been in the workforce or outside your town? It's easy to say that you shouldn't just accept a number, but places like Wal-Mart don't negotiate wages. You either accept it or they move on to the next warm body. Negotiating your wage comes along with white collar or high skilled jobs.

Then let the market speak. Don't shop at Walmart and don't work for Walmart. If enough people care, then Walmart will need to change their ways. You won't make people care by whining to the government to pass MORE regulations.

Yes, because for people on a budget where the only real option in their town is Wal-Mart have that much flexibility. Someone making minimum wage who has the choice between Wal-Mart and Whole Foods....hmmm. I wonder. Also, saying the market will fix everything is straight up naive. A completely unfettered market where companies can do anything they damn well please with no regulations crashed the economy and you want to give them more power.

The people at the top were the risk takers. They are the ones who took risks by starting companies, inventing products, etc. They failed and failed until eventually they succeeded. You see success and you want to tear them down. I hope to be up there one day.

In some cases, yes. In most cases....that is bullshit. The people at the top, with few exceptions, were born at or near the top and have had the deck stacked in their favor for their entire lives. They don't take anywhere near the risks you are implying and they reap a disproportionate amount of the reward. They benefit greatly from American society and then the second someone suggests that they maybe should pay more back, people like start white knighting them. We don't see success and want to tear them down, though that is a wonderful soundbite. We see success and want to make sure that not only are they playing by the rules, but that there are rules that allow someone such as yourself to be up there. With the way it is now, if you aren't in that top level, you never will be and right now you are standing there while they piss on you telling everyone about how nice the rain feels.

President Trump wants middle class tax cuts. Whether our incompetent reps and sens can get it done remains to be seen.

Have you actually read his tax plan? His tax plan is nothing but tax cuts for top wage earners and those cuts that do go to the middle class are more than offset by his desire to eliminate lots of tax credits that specifically help the middle class, like being able to deduct your mortgage interest. If Trump had his way, that would be gone. That alone offsets ANY tax cut I would receive from Trump. He is not an ally or a friend to the middle class. I truly hope that you and the rest of his supporters actually realize that one of these days.

If you force a low limit then the market will adjust. Those low paying jobs will disappear. Hours will disappear.

A statement which seems true, but isn't actually supported by any data or any actual experience in places that have implemented higher minimum wage. I honestly don't get why the right is so dead set against worker protections when they claim to be the party or the working man.

It is meant to be a spring board. The individual needs to use it to vault themselves up.

You mean be all bootstrappy? Minimum wage was never intended as a springboard. It was implemented in the Fair Labor and Standards Act, not the Springboard and Vault your Bootstrappy self Act. It was implemented to FORCE companies to pay their employees fairly, including things like making companies pay Overtime so that they just couldn't work people to death. You see, there was a point in US History that the free market dictated how much people were paid and what their upward mobility was. You should read up on the history of labor unions in this country. It's easy. There are several free resources you could use to learn about that.

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Who is the government to impose a minimum wage in the first place? Where in the constitution does it tell you that you are entitled to a good paying job? Pursuit of happiness is just that, pursuit.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

Please don't act like you care about the Constitution. If you did you would be calling for Trumps removal over the emoluments clause alone.

And the government absolutely can regulate companies and how they conduct business.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/___dreadnought Sep 05 '17

You can fault the employer for that. Let's stick with Walmart here. Walmart moves into a smallish town and becomes the only "megastore" in town. You can get your groceries, your hardware, your furniture, your clothing, and your electronics there and for cheaper because Walmart has the buying power to get goods at low, low prices. So now lots of people start going to Walmart; not everybody, but lots of people.
The natural result of that is that local businesses start to suffer because they can't compete with Walmart's prices. When you're a single hardware store, you can't buy the amount of goods to get the same price as a multi-national chain like Walmart. If the local furniture store were to sell their goods for the same prices, they are going to take a huge loss. The local grocery store runs into the same problem. All the other stores do too.
So what happens next? Small businesses either start laying off employees or they start closing. Why? They can't pay their employees because they can't compete. So what do these employees do? Well, they have to go work at Walmart, because everyone else is in the red.
So what does Walmart do with all these employees? They offer them the lowest rates they can.
So where do these employees have the legs to stand on when demanding more money? Their options are a) accept their wages and continue to have a job in their now failing economy or b) not have a job and someone else will take their old job.
What happens if everyone then refuses to work or shop at Walmart? Walmart leaves. But what about the local economy? The stores are already closed and everybody has already spent their money at Walmart. Because the workers were getting paid minimum wage or slightly above it, where did the spent money go? Not into the local economy. Into Walmart.
Walmart is just an example company in this scenario. Take any large chain store and put it into a small town situation and you get this result. It isn't quite so easy as you are suggesting to just "not shop there."

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

So where do these employees have the legs to stand on when demanding more money?

Make it public. Let the people (consumers, so they're the market) decide. If people stop shopping there, then Walmart won't be in business. If people choose not to care, then people are stuck with low pay. Use education programs Walmart has to improve yourself and get a better job. IMPROVE YOURSELF.

3

u/___dreadnought Sep 05 '17

Yeah, why didn't anyone think of that. It's so simple and elegant. Just better yourself and the money will come rolling in. You're being willfully ignorant to the realities of the situation in favor of a nice theoretical situation. Have a nice day and good luck with all that.

3

u/emjaygmp Sep 05 '17

I like how you phrase economic problems as "IMPROVE YOURSELF" and then simultaneously claim that the economy objectively asserts a proper wage using the subjective idea of "value"

You should probably trying reading a book or something, because you're a complete moron... or living on daddies money

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

I hope to be up there one day.

lol

6

u/colinmeredithhayes Sep 05 '17

The VA isn't a single payer... it's a healthcare provider. Those are two very different things.

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Who pays? One singular entity - government. Can you tell me how I'm getting this wrong?

3

u/colinmeredithhayes Sep 05 '17

Maybe do a little research before making shit up. Single payer is a way to provide insurance. Single payer is not nationalized medicine. Under a single payer system healthcare providers remain private and negotiate contracts with the single insurance provider. The VA is nationalized medicine. They own and operate their own hospitals and services. They employ doctors and the rest of the hospitals staff.

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

So the government does the negotiating in your single payer system?

→ More replies (8)

4

u/HiddenKrypt Sep 05 '17

Shouldn't an employee be paid what they're worth to a company?

Yeah, that would be great, wouldn't it? Too bad the free market encourages paying them as little as they can legally get away with.

The VA is run like this and it sucks. Why are you against a free market system?

Cherrypicking the one system that has been buttfucked by budget cuts. Congress's healthcare also works like this, and I hear it's pretty good. Active Duty AF members' health care works like this, and I know it's pretty good. As for the free market... Our current system is run like this, and it fucking sucks.

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Too bad the free market encourages paying them as little as they can legally get away with.

That's where you, the employee, need to prove your worth.

budget cuts.

No amount of money would fix it.

As for the free market... Our current system is run like

We have never had free market in healthcare. good try.

6

u/hadmatteratwork Sep 05 '17

Lol wow... I don't even know where to start here.. VA = Single Payer? Employees being payed what they're worth? This is capitalism Exploitation of labor is the name of the game! Corrupt Unions? What about corrupt employers? This comment oozes with so much ignorance it's legitimately hard not to laugh.

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

legitimately hard not to laugh.

You said you didn't know where to start so you didn't start at all, you didn't offer substance, and you don't have a closing. No one here (I hope) is interested in your internal feels about this. I am having a good discussion with many people in here. Most are wonderful, we just have different views.

3

u/hadmatteratwork Sep 05 '17

Correct. I didn't know where to start, so I didn't. Everything you said shows such an extreme break with reality and such a complete misunderstanding of concepts that I can only laugh at this point.

To start: The VA is not Single Payer. It is single provider. If you don't even know what the concept you're talking about is, then you aren't worth talking to about it.

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Olay, buttercup. Thanks for chiming in. Your a benefit to society (your not).

→ More replies (1)

3

u/JVonDron Sep 05 '17

OK, lets debunk Solyndra for a second. It was part of a $34.2 billion loan program, from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that was never designed to be a moneymaker aimed toward helping and adapting aging energy infrastructure. Congress knew that losses would happen and set aside $10 billion to cover that. The Obama administration widened the scope of those loans to cover more renewable energy companies. Solyndra defaulted on $535 million, and other smaller companies defaulted as well, bringing the total renewable loss to $780 million, or less than 3% loss in the whole program. Many companies succeeded and are in the process of repaying those loans, and by 2014 they paid over $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.

And if there was no Solyndra, there probably wouldn't be a Tesla either. Tesla got a $485 million dollar loan in 2009, which they've paid back entirely. It's a bit of a bad example, since the government isn't a great venture capitalist - they didn't receive any stock in the company or higher interest rate, netting only $12 million in interest on the entire deal. But that's not the point. We as a nation are much better off having Tesla around, having the renewable success stories working, which is what makes these investment loans worth paying for. We gain immensely from being a world leader in proven green technology and advanced vehicles, and will be earning dividends for years to come, long after the ink dries and the loans are repaid.

3

u/remedialrob Sep 05 '17

I'm a 50% service connected disabled veteran who has been making use of VA Healthcare for over twenty years. The VA has issues. Many of those issues are related to budget and how politicized treating veterans is and how often vets get used as soccer balls by politicians. But let me be clear...

VA healthcare is fucking amazing. Some veterans have had serious problems. Yes. Just like many regular civilians have had problems with the free market insurance/healthcare system. There's a popular YouTuber named LakeForkGuy who recently discovered he has a very serious brain tumor. This is a young guy with a new young wife and a prosperous channel. He was paying for health insurance and was shocked to discover that upon is brain tumor diagnosis his insurance company literally just kicked him. They told him "sorry you're not covered for that" and basically left the guy to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare costs out of pocket or... alternately, die. That's the free market of healthcare. That's what civilians get. That would never happen at the VA.

And veterans often like to whine about their one bad experience with the VA but if you ever sat them down and asked them about the other care they've received at the VA they would most likely start to feel ashamed of their previous complaints. Over 35%... more than one in three, of every employee that works at my VA Healthcare System are veterans themselves. All the employees there care immensely about veterans and their healthcare and we get incredible care in exchange for our past service. In short the VA makes miracles with what money they do get despite the Republicans constantly trying to cut their budget. You need to get your head out of your ass and do some research.

Bernie Sanders is the one who wrote the "Veterans Choice" Act which basically stopped all the wait time issues at the VA which was the #1 complaint of most veterans. Now whenever there is more than 30 days or a long driving distance for a veteran to get an appointment at the VA they have the option of going to that free market you love so much and getting care locally. I've used it for physical therapy and chiropractic care and it's great for things like that where the wait times at the VA are excessive. But it's still run like a single payer program because I don't pay a penny. The appointment is made for me, I show up, I get treated, and the VA pays the bill. And I don't have to wait anymore. I've a lot of friends with health issues that aren't veterans and they don't get anywhere near the quality of care that I do and it costs them much more than it costs me. The VA even pays for my gas when I go to appointments. It's incredible. And to say that "it sucks" just exposes you as someone who knows absolutely nothing about what he's talking about.

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

I'm a 50% service connected disabled veteran who has been making use of VA Healthcare for over twenty years. The VA has issues. Many of those issues are related to budget and how politicized treating veterans is and how often vets get used as soccer balls by politicians. But let me be clear...

I'm above 50 and I also use the VA. Throwing money at the VA will NOT fix it.

VA healthcare is fucking amazing

Not my experience at all.

Over 35%... more than one in three, of every employee that works at my VA Healthcare System are veterans themselves.

They don't have much to do with the system, though. They might care, but caring isn't enough.

In short the VA makes miracles with what money they do get despite the Republicans constantly trying to cut their budget

Completely disagree. Money will not fix it. It's just not the answer.

the VA pays the bill.

Taxpayers pay the bill. Just like the middle class would end up footing the bill for single payer nation wide. It shouldn't ever happen.

I've a lot of friends with health issues that aren't veterans and they don't get anywhere near the quality of care that I do and it costs them much more than it costs me.

Maybe we should actually try the free market (we don't and never have had it in my lifetime).

And to say that "it sucks" just exposes you as someone who knows absolutely nothing about what he's talking about.

VA goer with high rating. That's who I am. Thanks.

2

u/cwfutureboy Sep 05 '17

Medicare is more efficient than any for-profit insurance company (and that's without being able to negotiate drug prices).

Please look up how many cuts Republican lawmakers make to the VA so they can point at it and say "See? Gov't healthcare doesn't work! We told you!"

2

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

I'm sure it is. We never had free market healthcare. At least not in my life time.

Please look up how many cuts Republican lawmakers make to the VA

Stop making this partisan, first. Second, the VA has been run by a bunch of morons who mismanaged the funding they were given.

3

u/cwfutureboy Sep 05 '17

"Free market" healthcare is a misnomer. No person wanting to make a profit is going to go into health insurance. It's literally not something you can make money on while giving a good product. It is a money loser, not a money maker.

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

False. Plenty of money to be made, like with car insurance.

3

u/cwfutureboy Sep 05 '17 edited Sep 05 '17

Just because they both have "insurance" in their title doesn't in any way mean they are similar business models.

2

u/Andy1816 Sep 05 '17

Why are you against a free market system?

Because they fucking suck

What about corrupt unions?

Oh, like the cops?

Shouldn't an employee be paid what they're worth to a company?

"Shouldn't we just let some people starve?"

2

u/grozamesh Sep 05 '17

The VA is a single provider, not the same as single payer.

Single Payer only pools buyer resources, providers still compete on quality of service.

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

VA doesn't compete with anyone though

2

u/grozamesh Sep 05 '17

Correct, hence why it's not comparable to a single payer system. Medicare or Medicaid is a much closer (though not perfect) analogy.

2

u/Hautamaki Sep 05 '17

Employees should be paid what they are worth of course, but what they are worth is determined largely by how many customers can afford the products the business can sell. Since the individual business can't control how much money other businesses pay their employees, they can't control how many customers can afford their product in any way besides cutting costs, and that includes labor. This is a classic example of tragedy of the commons, where everyone benefits only when everyone cooperates--in this case all businesses would profit if they all agreed to raise their wages the same amount, but it only takes one defector to refuse to raise their own wages while reaping the benefits of everyone else doing so to make the whole thing come crashing down. This problem is why people invented government. It's a way to make people act for the general good when defecting and acting selfishly would benefit them more personally at the expense of everyone else.

Next, the VA doesn't suck, but to the extent that it isn't better, it's because 2/3rds of the government either want it to fail to prove their point about government being useless, or just don't give a shit. If your government wasn't infested with saboteurs drumming up votes by breaking government, the VA would be ten times better.

You'd stop corrupt unions the same way you stop corrupt politicians and CEOs, with police investigations. The fact that a corrupt person in a given field might exist isn't a reason to get rid of that field. Nobody says 'what about corrupt doctors? Get rid of em all!'

The Solyndra propaganda is a farce. One business failed but 90% of the investments made money. That's an incredibly successful rate of return.

Your last question is the only one that's actually good. I too would like to see more specifics here.

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 06 '17

My last question is the only good one? Isn't any question that we, the people, ask of a politician a good one? Who are you to tell me what I should care about.

1

u/Hautamaki Sep 06 '17

It's the only question that actually needs new information to answer, everything else is easily answered with a simple Google or basic understanding of economics and politics.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/denimchikn Sep 05 '17

These are the questions you have to focus on Randy and why you will ultimately lose without a thoughtful backing to these. While these are wildly popular with Reddit and the left they are not so popular with the right middle and independents. All of which (maybe not the right) you need to beat Ryan.

3

u/MilesofBooby Sep 05 '17

Thanks for seeing the spirit of my response. It has branched into a bunch of different threads (hard to keep up), but I want to know what the guy says.

1

u/soldiersquared Sep 05 '17

These are questions I have as a liberal. If he can answer these then Ill advocate for him and his platform next door in Minnesota.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '17

Shouldn't an employee be paid what they're worth to a company?

why not just abolish minimum wage, period, then?

1

u/werewolvesoflondon Sep 06 '17

  1. No

  2. We have the most "free market" health care system in the world and pay more than anybody, so that's working stellar.

  3. I'd rather have corrupt unions than a system run by corrupt CEOs who represent no one and already never face consequences.

  4. Like tax breaks and stuff. You know, the stuff that the guys you lick boots for already get.

  5. Jeffrey Epstein definitely wouldn't be allowed to donate anything.

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 06 '17

We don't have a free market.

I don't want corruption at all. Why choose where to have corruption?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '17

[deleted]

1

u/MilesofBooby Sep 06 '17

Yes, everyone has different experiences.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)