Trump Impeachment Inquiry (Discussion)

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 58
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Since all companies can benefit by paying their employees as little as possible, they will do so. 
This is correct...in fantasyland as Mellon would put it.


Competition drives wages up so you can't just simply form a cartel. All it takes is for one business to offer higher wages to drive the rest out of the market.

You don't seriously think there is an infinite pool of unemployed workers do you? (in the real world of course)

When companies are trying to get people to join their team...why the hell would they waste the time advertising "we offer a competitive wage" if as you put it...people will just choose to work for next to nothing? Nonsense.

Worker greed is universal. Workers will join the place they enjoy working at a competitive wage-price they are happy with.
#32
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Maybe social security is a trash system and that retirement savings should be done by individuals. Ever heard of a Roth IRA/IRA/401k? There are plenty of opportunities to save without having to burden everyone who works to pay for people who don't. 

Roth IRAs are the most incredible things ever made. You don't have to pay any taxes for money gained on investments. I'm 19, and I have already started one. 
#33
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
So, I as a prescient individual, am saving for retirement over four decades in advance. Other people are stupid and don't save. They spend all of their money on expensive shoes, liquor, etc. When they are sixty, they have no money for retirement. Do they have a right to steal my income to pay for their housing, healthcare, and food?
#34
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Competition drives wages up so you can't just simply form a cartel.
This assumption requires that competition is in their best interest. If they have more to gain by not competing, then it is in their best interest to not compete. An increase in the cost of labor doesn't benefit any company. They don't ever want the cost of labor to go up. So they are willing to compete for certain kinds of jobs that they consider higher value (CEOs, CFOs, market analysts etc), but labor type positions are not in this area. They would rather over work their existing staff than increase wages to attract new employees. Since all companies have this same kind of thinking, they don't need to meet in back rooms and plan this. It is just standard practice for most companies.

If the minimum wage were removed today, you would see a sizable chunk of the lower middle class sink into poverty. I mean, in some sense it might be a good thing. Millions of people would wake up and realize that the free market capitalism that republicans have been telling them that they have to love is a system designed to screw them over and only generate wealth for the top tiny fraction of society. At that point maybe american society could actually progress to the same level as the rest of the developed world and escape the idea that the right wing is actually the center".
#35
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Other people are stupid and don't save.
The real wages of american workers have been stagnant if not falling for decades. Some people are stupid and don't save. Alot of people literally cannot save because the cost of living has risen so much faster than their wages that they are barely treading water. The wage gap is growing. The economy is being rigged to benefit the very top chunk while the large majority of the population is being forced closer and closer to poverty. 

If we fix the system then workers will be able to make enough to save. 
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The entire point of competing is to get more than the other guy. There is never ever an instance where it's in your best interest not to compete. That is how people get abused, by believing they suck too bad to do better than anyone else, limiting opportunities for yourself.

This goes for the worker too, not just employers.

If you as a worker join a worker union cartel and they say you can only earn so much and you have to only do such and such job at this many hours... but the union you belong to is filled with fat, lazy, incompetent, overvalued workers that you know you could out-earn if given the chance, then there's no reason to choose to "not compete" with your fellow workers for a better job at a place you want doing a job you want with the hours you want and getting paid a LOT more than your union cartel buddies.
#37
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I would prefer limiting immigration to reduce supply of labor, and therefore increase the value of labor. That would increase wages. As for cost of living increases, that is likely due to high taxes and regulation.

How would you propose we "fix the system"?
#38
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I would prefer limiting immigration to reduce supply of labor, and therefore increase the value of labor.
It wouldn't though. it would definitely limit the growth of the US economy. It would drastically increase the speed at which workers are replaced by machines. Companies are not going to pay their workers more if they don't have to. The cost of employment is one of their largest costs. They are not going to suddenly decide they need to treat their workers better. If workers became scarce, they would find ways to need less workers. Probably by increasing automation or start shipping even more jobs overseas. Ballooning their employment costs would a last resort. 

How would you propose we "fix the system"?
For a start we need to get private money out of politics. Corporations have been able to rig the economy because they have massive influence in politics. If they were banned from using that money to influence politicians, that would help. 

We need to find a way to encourage companies to increase wages. Some suggestions have been things like setting a legal cap for executives pay at a multiple of the average workers pay. Ex. the CEO can only make 50 times the average salary of an employee. This would motivate executives to pay workers more, because it would increase the cap on themselves as well. 

Another example is universal healthcare. Employers are able to use healthcare as a bargaining chip instead of offering salary. If that is taken off the table (because everyone already has healthcare) then they will need to add more salary in order to attract workers. 
#39
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There is never ever an instance where it's in your best interest not to compete.
Of course there are examples where it is better to not compete. If competition drives up costs for both companies, then it is in their best interest not to compete. So if they both pay minimum wage for workers, then they might have trouble filling some positions, but they pay as little as possible. If they both started paying more then they would still have trouble finding workers (since they are competing for them) but their costs have now risen considerably. The both stand to lose money if they compete for workers by raising salary. If they both continue to pay the minimum they save alot of money.

There is a reason the unionized jobs pay way more than non unionized jobs in most industries. If you are bargaining by yourself, you are easily replaceable. If you don't want to work for the amount they want to pay you, then they will find someone who will work for that amount. If you are bargaining as a group, then you have much more power. They can't fire everyone. They have no choice but to offer more or their entire business with be affected by a strike. I'm not saying unions are perfect, they certainly aren't. But unions helped to build the middle class. Now that they have come under attack the middle class is collapsing into poverty. The 2 events are related. 
#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The only time when it is EVER in your best interest to not compete is when you THINK you are incompetent and you have convinced yourself that this is the best you can ever get.

In which case it's time to close up shop and move on.

Unions give workers the illusion they are doing well, but they are self-limiting their potential.
I've been in many worker unions and was disgusted at the number of incompetent workers dragging me down.

I currently only have to work 2 hours a day because I outperformed every person in the teacher's union I quit to join a private corporation.

My biggest problem I have right now is all the free time...
#41
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
You admit that wages are the largest cost of company. Then you talk about increasing wages. Exactly how will that stop them from automating? Also, how do you know that these companies would start paying employees more just because of healthcare costs going away? Or that the increase would be equal to the burden lifted(assuming universal healthcare doesn't drastically increase expenditures)?


Topic's author
#42
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Mopac
Dems abuse their power of parties to stereotype all Republicans as white racist men. They are the main reason why this society won't flourish because they give handouts to gang bangers and let the middle class rot to the bottom.

They will bankrupt this country
#43
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Wow, you got teamed up on and tossed across every tangent. Everytime you nailed them on a point they would focus elsewhere and never admit anything.

This is why i like the limited rounds of the debate. If any of ya want a go on most any left wing policy, especially the economic ones, ill gladly do it via a debate :D
#44
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Exactly how will that stop them from automating?
Nothing will stop them from automating. That is why government intervention is more important than ever. Increased automation will lead to increased profits. But it will also lead to them laying off their workers as they become unnecessary. If we do no fundamentally change who we manage our economy then the middle class will be finished off entirely. 


Also, how do you know that these companies would start paying employees more just because of healthcare costs going away?
I don't. But one example of how it will help is with strikes. If people take labor action against their employers they will lose their health insurance. They run the risk of being ruined by becoming yet another health care bankrupcy. If you remove the ability of employer to threaten their lives (by essentially leaving them without any medical aid) then you strengthen the hand of employees. It also removes a large expense that employers have to take on. If employers no longer have to pay for the healthcare of their employees, that will help all small businesses. 

Or that the increase would be equal to the burden lifted(assuming universal healthcare doesn't drastically increase expenditures)?
Americans pay several times more for healthcare per capita than most other developed countries. You also have worse health outcomes. A single payer system will be able to significantly reduce costs. Virtually every household in america will pay less for healthcare and they will all get better coverage. 
#45
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Donald Trump's comments on this were that literally 'I was too nice' so they just had to investigate him. He's been a walking, talking fucktard clown/troll from the day he began his campaign to now. It's pathetic that he won but even more pathetic that he's acting more like a jester, after winning. He has shamed every single person who's voted for him in every single way possible. He is intentionally making a fool of himself and is categorically going to go down in history as the worst work-ethic and public image of a politician of all time. It is actually nearly impossible to outdo Trump in how dedicated and consistent he's been to make a total and utter fool of himself because if you do that now, you'll be called 'the next Trump' so he has basically trademarked being a retard in chief.

Using the term 'retard' there is not discriminatory towards clinical retards, it is actually a compliment to how high up the human hierarchy one can go. Trump is a pathetic excuse of a poltician, strategist and human being. The only reason he came into power is people like Milo Yiannopoulos and the likes of Jordan Peterson both thought it would be a good way to 'shake things up' and get a real 'ROAR, fuck the establishment!' vibe going. In reality, Trump always has been establishment. He is even more establishment than Clinton is; he was born into the Illuminati, his father was one of the filthiest businessmen of all time in NY.

Whether Trump ends up impeached and made a fool or ends up quietly stepping down, he stands no chance in business or politics anymore. He's a stupid nutcase who let the power and money get way too far into his head/ego. He's never ever going to succeed in life from here on out and will go down in history as the only President to make Bush Jr. look smart.

#46
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
So, you would like to destroy domestic industries in order to keep manufacturing jobs? Should we still use assembly lines without no automation for automobile manufacturing like they did for Henry Ford? Do you think anyone would buy our cars if they were more expensive and lower quality because we refuse to automate? You think that will keep jobs, or ultimately lose them all?

Automation makes products higher quality and cheaper. I don't think we should automate too quickly, as some short run issues could occur, but stopping progress is foolish.

Reducing taxes and regulations would also help small businesses, but you seem to have a problem with that. Hmm.... When you increase the corporate tax rate, you will still hurt the small businesses. I'm also not sure that strengthening unions is a good thing. I will point to General Motors and the teachers union as examples of their failures and greed.

You know what would reduce costs even more? The answer is what historically has: competition. We need to allow health insurance companies to compete on a national level rather than state levels. State companies essentially have oligopolies. Also, your Democrat politicians over-regulate the health insurance markets. You force companies to cover a lot of different things like hearing aids, no matter the insurance plan. Families should tailor their plan to their needs, not pay more for something they may never need. 
#47
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
Honestly I am unfriending you. I don't want to be friends with a right-wing propaganda lie machine.
Topic's author
#48
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
We do not live in the 1800s. Companies will pay because they have too. They pay what they need to pay. The better phrasing is (pay the bare minimum), not don't  pay
Topic's author
#49
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Left policies are only effective in times of struggle/decay in economy

Right policies are only effective in times of boom to make the country go higher than ever

Mixing up the two or a misuse of the two crashes the economy down. Like Bush did in the 2000s and Hoover in the 1920s. The right thing to do was lean Republican now. The best thing to do is go Republican. A bankrupt country is less effective than a booming country
#50
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Vader
Left policies are only effective in times of struggle/decay in economy
This is entirely untrue. Left wing policies are more effective than right wing policies all the time. Right wing policies help to push wealth to top. They strip wealth from middle and lower class. As as result the economy starts to struggle. Left wing policies clean up the mess. The strongest economies are the ones where wealth is distributed more evenly. This means that more people have money to spend and the economy has a driving force to grow. When more money gets pushed to the top money stops moving. When the bulk of the population can't afford to buy things you get the economy slowing down. 

The right thing to do was lean Republican now. The best thing to do is go Republican.
There hasn't been a left leaning government for decades. There has just been right wing and further right wing. The economy is a mess. The vast majority of the money has been pushed to a tiny percentage of people. This cannot be sustained. If there isn't a fundamental redesign of the economy there is going to be a collapse. America needs an actual progressive government to clean up decades of right wing policies and corruption. 
#51
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Vader
We do not live in the 1800s.
The examples I gave are from the 20th century. And based on the policies you are advocating for, it sounds like you want to go back to the type of economy they had in the 1900's. Ie. billionaires working poor people literally to death so that they can make an extra billion. 
#52
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Vader
Wouldn't right wing policies be best in times of recession? They make it less risky to invest and start businesses. They allow businesses to grow faster, which is good for consumer confidence.
#53
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Wouldn't right wing policies be best in times of recession?
The fastest way out of a recession is to ramp up spending. In the great depression that was government spending for WW2. But if you can put more money into the hands of general population they will go out and spend it. This will create demand for more good and/or services and fuel growth. 

Left wing policies are always better. 

#54
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Left wing policies are not always better. Look at Venezuela, North Korea, the previous Soviet Union, and China under Mao lol. Those were the most left-wing policies ever passed, and they destroyed the economies of those countries.

FDR essentially crowded out private spending and investments. Many economists believe that he prolonged the Great Depression. 

#55
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Look at Venezuela, North Korea, the previous Soviet Union, and China under Mao lol.
Those are extreme cases. If you take something to an extreme case, it is almost always bad. And when discussing economics the terms left and right get very imprecise. For example a monarchy is a right wing system. Therefore north korea is right wing, not left. 

FDR essentially crowded out private spending and investments. Many economists believe that he prolonged the Great Depression.
There are economists that will tell you trickle down economics works, with a straight face. It is well established that trickle down economics is a lie sold by millionaires and billionaires. The reason america turned into a power house is because it's population became more wealthy. They empowered their consumer base which drove demand and growth. if millions of people want to buy something, that creates demand and drives innovation. If the majority of people don't have disposable income, then there is no demand for new products. It doesn't matter how much money there is available for investing in new companies if no one wants to/is able to buy it. Growth comes from building up demand not by over saturating supply. You can't force growth if there is no market to buy the product. Right wing policies have been destroying the buying power of the majority of Americans and weakening the economy.

As more and more Americans are forced out of the middle class growth will slow down. Those people who have no prospect of succeeding the shitty system the wealthy built will turn against right wing policies. You are seeing this right now with how popular left wing ideas are, especially with young people. They see that they are going to be crushed by debt just to try to get a half decent job that wont pay enough to keep them in the middle class. Society is currently shifting left and will likely continue to do so. 
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
There are economists that will tell you trickle down economics works, with a straight face.
There are also economists that will tell you taxing the rich will create jobs, with a straight face.

 You can't force growth if there is no market to buy the product. 

Steve Jobs would disagree. He led a marketing campaign to convince millions of people to buy his product when there was none to begin with.
#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
As more and more Americans are forced out of the middle class..




Really, you can't find a place in the country with more income inequality than California.
#58
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There are also economists that will tell you taxing the rich will create jobs, with a straight face.
Taxing anyone doesn't create jobs. What you do with that tax revenue very well could. For example, by providing healthcare for people, or removing crippling student debt from people. 

Steve Jobs would disagree. He led a marketing campaign to convince millions of people to buy his product when there was none to begin with.
I think you will find that consumer phones existed before the iPhone. He changed the market to be sure, but he didn't create it. How do you think that would go if no one could afford a phone though? It doesn't matter how great your product is. If people have to choose between a consumer product or losing their home, no one is going to be buying consumer products. You need a prosperous middle class in order to have success stories like Apple. And right wing policies are destroying that middle class. 

Really, you can't find a place in the country with more income inequality than California.
What is your point? The United States' economy is set up to favor the wealthy. California is set up that way the same as everywhere else. It has more problems because it has more big companies with their headquarters there. We need a president Sanders, or maybe Warren, to deal with these problems.