34 MI House Dems introduce a bill that would provide refundable tax credit to cover union dues

[Badger]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Union members receive benefits that are helpful to them and their families. Those benefits are where dues money goes to.

Right, but they're harmful to all of the other people in the state, which is most of them. (They're even harmful to union members in other industries, for that matter).

No? First off, higher union wages mean higher non employee union wages. I realize that higher wages for the working plebs is something that offends you to your core, but the rest of us see that is the basis of a strong economy rather than hoping multi-millionaires by a second home to throw a few construction jobs at the middle class.

Likewise, having say for workplaces makes for a safer and more healthy workforce. People being laid up in the hospital or on disability to not improve anyone's bottom line.

Saying that unions harm the rest of the economy is just silly as hell. Downright libertarian in mentality, but I repeat myself.

Why do you always assume the worst in others you disagree with?

I'm assuming nothing. Vosem's desire for a dystopian social darwinist model of society that would make Ayn Rand give pause is something he is posted about numerous times.

[Vosem]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Union members receive benefits that are helpful to them and their families. Those benefits are where dues money goes to.

Right, but they're harmful to all of the other people in the state, which is most of them. (They're even harmful to union members in other industries, for that matter).

No? First off, higher union wages mean higher non employee union wages. I realize that higher wages for the working plebs is something that offends you to your core, but the rest of us see that is the basis of a strong economy rather than hoping multi-millionaires by a second home to throw a few construction jobs at the middle class.

Likewise, having say for workplaces makes for a safer and more healthy workforce. People being laid up in the hospital or on disability to not improve anyone's bottom line.

Saying that unions harm the rest of the economy is just silly as hell. Downright libertarian in mentality, but I repeat myself.

How could unions not harm the economy? The whole point is that they raise the price of labor and make goods/services more expensive to help their own members. What do you think the economy even is? (Also, the number of examples of societies that have seen backlashes to unions where those have grown powerful is enormous; literally everybody understands that unions harm those individuals who aren't in unions).

I don't think your second paragraph is true in the modern United States, which is generally overregulated and over-focused on safetyism. Regulations increase costs, which are eventually imposed on consumers themselves (including the union members, who are also consumers). There is a balance to be found here, generally in paying people more for more dangerous work rather than prohibiting it. Of course, we can't have that -- some people might (gasp) get more than others!

'Wages' don't mean very much if they don't correspond to purchasing power. In Joe Biden's America, wages have actually skyrocketed, but purchasing power has pretty distinctly not (I think it's up relative to when his inauguration happened, but by much less than wages). Arguing for wages instead of arguing for purchasing power is taking a blinkered approach. I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires, not (as you do) see the multi-millionaires pointlessly reduced with no gains for anyone, and in fact losses for the plebs!

(One of the strongest correlates between domestic migration in the modern United States, in fact, is movement to right-to-work states; this has lots of other pro-market correlates, of course, but people will actively choose to live in places where they get to consume more, rather than places where they're safer or have better working conditions -- or even on-paper higher wages. The highest wages in the US tend to be in metropolitan areas which have such high costs of living that the actual median purchasing power is really not that great.)

[Trump Is A Maoist]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Affluenza speaks.

I actually support unionizing companies like Walmart and Amazon. What I don't support is using taxpayer money to enrich the pockets of union leadership and then into campaign coffers of liberal politicians.

Maybe if Republicans didn't do such a crappy job and trying to represent the working class other than trying to convince them illegal immigrants stealing their jobs, maybe those Union endorsements wouldn't go for democrats?

And kindly wean yourself off whatever Mommy and Daddy or the Wall Street Journal op-ed page tells you about union leaders lining their pockets with member dues. The days of Jimmy Hoffa are long gone. I'm not going to say there's not a single union representative out of the millions out there who isn't putting g their hand in the till? but it's a damn sight less than the non-stop pilfering we see from corporations.  Besides, something you and other right-wing twits who parrot that whole Union Thugs and bigwigs crap line seem to forget is that union membership is democratically elected, one person one vote, unlike corporations where Whoever has the most money makes the rules and decides what one can and cannot get away with. You know, the good old Republican way . I assume on that basis you post tax cuts for corporations, beep boop?

Your definition of so-called special interest groups which you oppose tax cuts to support are merely organizations that don't support what you believe in. Such hypocritical myopia is ridiculous.

As a tax accountant , I have seen first hand the benefits of the 2017 tax bill. It has greatly benefited small business and thats great .

Anyway I would oppose any more major tax cut bills in future GOP trifectas.

[Badger]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Union members receive benefits that are helpful to them and their families. Those benefits are where dues money goes to.

Right, but they're harmful to all of the other people in the state, which is most of them. (They're even harmful to union members in other industries, for that matter).

No? First off, higher union wages mean higher non employee union wages. I realize that higher wages for the working plebs is something that offends you to your core, but the rest of us see that is the basis of a strong economy rather than hoping multi-millionaires by a second home to throw a few construction jobs at the middle class.

Likewise, having say for workplaces makes for a safer and more healthy workforce. People being laid up in the hospital or on disability to not improve anyone's bottom line.

Saying that unions harm the rest of the economy is just silly as hell. Downright libertarian in mentality, but I repeat myself.

How could unions not harm the economy?

Read your quote, but could have stopped here. You are so separated from reality on planet Earth versus planet and rand. You've always been a huge fan of social darwinist dystopian doggy dogging FTW anarchocapless bullsh**t, so much so that even people in this forum who like you are very very creeped out by your views and rightly so.

Seriously. I could answer that question with pages and pages of her bottle, but not an ounce of it will sink into your wide thousand yards stare fanaticism. One could argue why unions might be too powerful or how they could be reformed - I think in 2023 the idea that they're too powerful is ludicrous, especially in a historical context - but literally have no clue how unions cannot otherwise hurt the economy is the blathering of a zealot whom I have zero interest in wasting my time trying to convince that the Earth is round or two plus two equals four.

[Vosem]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

[Vosem]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Union members receive benefits that are helpful to them and their families. Those benefits are where dues money goes to.

Right, but they're harmful to all of the other people in the state, which is most of them. (They're even harmful to union members in other industries, for that matter).

No? First off, higher union wages mean higher non employee union wages. I realize that higher wages for the working plebs is something that offends you to your core, but the rest of us see that is the basis of a strong economy rather than hoping multi-millionaires by a second home to throw a few construction jobs at the middle class.

Likewise, having say for workplaces makes for a safer and more healthy workforce. People being laid up in the hospital or on disability to not improve anyone's bottom line.

Saying that unions harm the rest of the economy is just silly as hell. Downright libertarian in mentality, but I repeat myself.

How could unions not harm the economy?

Read your quote, but could have stopped here. You are so separated from reality on planet Earth versus planet and rand. You've always been a huge fan of social darwinist dystopian doggy dogging FTW anarchocapless bullsh**t, so much so that even people in this forum who like you are very very creeped out by your views and rightly so.

Off the Internet, it's really rare for me to meet anyone who isn't, and referendum results really strongly suggest that in my country, people who aren't are decidedly a minority. You need to get in touch with the place you live.

Seriously. I could answer that question with pages and pages of her bottle, but not an ounce of it will sink into your wide thousand yards stare fanaticism. One could argue why unions might be too powerful or how they could be reformed - I think in 2023 the idea that they're too powerful is ludicrous, especially in a historical context - but literally have no clue how unions cannot otherwise hurt the economy is the blathering of a zealot whom I have zero interest in wasting my time trying to convince that the Earth is round or two plus two equals four.

I have to question whether you know what a union is. Unions don't even deny this!

[Badger]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

Great point! Since air conditioning has been invented, all class distinctions have disappeared.

Or, something like that..?

[Badger]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Union members receive benefits that are helpful to them and their families. Those benefits are where dues money goes to.

Right, but they're harmful to all of the other people in the state, which is most of them. (They're even harmful to union members in other industries, for that matter).

No? First off, higher union wages mean higher non employee union wages. I realize that higher wages for the working plebs is something that offends you to your core, but the rest of us see that is the basis of a strong economy rather than hoping multi-millionaires by a second home to throw a few construction jobs at the middle class.

Likewise, having say for workplaces makes for a safer and more healthy workforce. People being laid up in the hospital or on disability to not improve anyone's bottom line.

Saying that unions harm the rest of the economy is just silly as hell. Downright libertarian in mentality, but I repeat myself.

How could unions not harm the economy?

Read your quote, but could have stopped here. You are so separated from reality on planet Earth versus planet and rand. You've always been a huge fan of social darwinist dystopian doggy dogging FTW anarchocapless bullsh**t, so much so that even people in this forum who like you are very very creeped out by your views and rightly so.

Off the Internet, it's really rare for me to meet anyone who isn't, and referendum results really strongly suggest that in my country, people who aren't are decidedly a minority. You need to get in touch with the place you live.

Seriously. I could answer that question with pages and pages of her bottle, but not an ounce of it will sink into your wide thousand yards stare fanaticism. One could argue why unions might be too powerful or how they could be reformed - I think in 2023 the idea that they're too powerful is ludicrous, especially in a historical context - but literally have no clue how unions cannot otherwise hurt the economy is the blathering of a zealot whom I have zero interest in wasting my time trying to convince that the Earth is round or two plus two equals four.

I have to question whether you know what a union is. Unions don't even deny this!

LOLOLOL!  Find me one Union member anywhere who's ever said, yes, we unions harm the overall economy. LOLOLOL!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hxGgnI6kCrs

[Vosem]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

Great point! Since air conditioning has been invented, all class distinctions have disappeared.

Or, something like that..?

Yes, since air conditioning has been invented, people lead lives more comfortable and more free of sickness than monarchs did in the fairly near past.

Why would we want class distinctions to disappear? If we want more advances and, y'know, progress -- more diseases eradicated and more comfortable housing -- we should want the people who are best at meeting consumers' standards to be at the top. (Also, all societies that eliminated class distinctions to date have been totalitarian hellholes from which people routinely risked their lives to escape. If someone wants to eliminate class distinctions, or freeze existing classes in place, their community should shoot them in self-defense).

[Vosem]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Union members receive benefits that are helpful to them and their families. Those benefits are where dues money goes to.

Right, but they're harmful to all of the other people in the state, which is most of them. (They're even harmful to union members in other industries, for that matter).

No? First off, higher union wages mean higher non employee union wages. I realize that higher wages for the working plebs is something that offends you to your core, but the rest of us see that is the basis of a strong economy rather than hoping multi-millionaires by a second home to throw a few construction jobs at the middle class.

Likewise, having say for workplaces makes for a safer and more healthy workforce. People being laid up in the hospital or on disability to not improve anyone's bottom line.

Saying that unions harm the rest of the economy is just silly as hell. Downright libertarian in mentality, but I repeat myself.

How could unions not harm the economy?

Read your quote, but could have stopped here. You are so separated from reality on planet Earth versus planet and rand. You've always been a huge fan of social darwinist dystopian doggy dogging FTW anarchocapless bullsh**t, so much so that even people in this forum who like you are very very creeped out by your views and rightly so.

Off the Internet, it's really rare for me to meet anyone who isn't, and referendum results really strongly suggest that in my country, people who aren't are decidedly a minority. You need to get in touch with the place you live.

Seriously. I could answer that question with pages and pages of her bottle, but not an ounce of it will sink into your wide thousand yards stare fanaticism. One could argue why unions might be too powerful or how they could be reformed - I think in 2023 the idea that they're too powerful is ludicrous, especially in a historical context - but literally have no clue how unions cannot otherwise hurt the economy is the blathering of a zealot whom I have zero interest in wasting my time trying to convince that the Earth is round or two plus two equals four.

I have to question whether you know what a union is. Unions don't even deny this!

LOLOLOL!  Find me one Union member anywhere who's ever said, yes, we unions harm the overall economy. LOLOLOL!

...every union's pitch to its members, ever, has been about how they won't need to compete with people outside of the union (ie, the huge majority of society) for jobs. Are you saying that unions don't protect their members from losing their jobs?

WTF are you on about?

[Badger]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

Great point! Since air conditioning has been invented, all class distinctions have disappeared.

Or, something like that..?

Yes, since air conditioning has been invented, people lead lives more comfortable and more free of sickness than monarchs did in the fairly near past.

Why would we want class distinctions to disappear? If we want more advances and, y'know, progress -- more diseases eradicated and more comfortable housing -- we should want the people who are best at meeting consumers' standards to be at the top. (Also, all societies that eliminated class distinctions to date have been totalitarian hellholes from which people routinely risked their lives to escape. If someone wants to eliminate class distinctions, or freeze existing classes in place, their community should shoot them in self-defense).

There's not one word in that dribble you type making any case against a robust social safety net you're reptilian or active unions.

I get it dude. You have these completely sheltered textbook driven views that have led you to conclude without any firsthand knowledge that if only we got rid of welfare and 90% of government regulation we'd all be farting through silk overnight in the poor would be showered with I'm told riches and prosperity. The fact that you are such a zeld about it strikes me as cold-blooded, even downright reptilian. Banding words back and forth with a fanatic who who would gladly, unhesitating cause Untold economic havoc and misery for tens of Millions prove this point, and then deny it was his policies that led to such suffering, or frankly just not really care, is an utter waste of time.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

As a reminder for people here who might benefit from hearing this:
-> vosem is a failed lawyer who has no credentials, expertise or training to interpret or understand empirical evidence about the economy
-> If we turn to actual empirical evidence about the minimum wage, which will operate through the same channel as union effect on wages, there's basically no evidence of a significant effect on employment. This fact has overturned conventional wisdom in economics, rekindling a very old interest in labor market power of firms - the only way we can easily rationalize this result is if firms are setting wages and, by placing a wage floor under them, we force a useful re-allocation of resources from less productive firms (small businesses) to large firms that are actually productive.
-> I'm not aware of any evidence offered against unions that focuses on the price channel that vosem hypothesizes. I believe he simply made this up. In an economic environment where very few firms are unionized, a higher wage bill isn't going to mechanically lead to higher prices, it would lead to reduced output or 'inefficient' allocation of inputs etc. I doubt this story also but I think that pretty standard models wouldn't show an effect on prices. They might show an effect on aggregate output - in a way, that's 'like' people being less able to have as much stuff?
-> The case against regulations is basically strong but do you know where it isn't strong? On safety regulations meant to protect workers. The notion that the labor market features large compensating differentials has been overturned recently. If one thinks about this, it's shocking that economists ever believed that the labor market was capable of "pricing" safety risk properly. How can workers evaluate the safety risks at a job a priori, before working at that job? All of the extremely old literature about this is based on 'rational expectations', where workers are omniscient, having foresight about the distribution of risks at every occupation that is aligned with reality.
-> It's worth mentioning that the kind of low IQ libertarianism espoused by vosem also believes that 'the consumer' is capable of evaluating the risks of taking pharmaceutical y or x or z and that these kinds of regulations are harmful. It also tends to endorse getting rid of medical licensing or pharmaceutical licensing. Do I need to explain why this is a patently silly viewpoint? I don't think so: by the same logic of compensating differentials, if taking pills or going to doctor is a 'voodoo medicine' lottery, patients will simply ration themselves out of these things. Efficiency would suffer.

What offends me the most about vosem is his insistence that if he asserts something with enough gusto, it becomes true because he wants it to be true. What also bothers me is the implicit assertion that if you have some humility and actually work hard to try to understand how something functions, you're some kind of fool - why bother doing that when you can be a sophist and cobble together some points that seem half-true in isolation.

[Vosem]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

Great point! Since air conditioning has been invented, all class distinctions have disappeared.

Or, something like that..?

Yes, since air conditioning has been invented, people lead lives more comfortable and more free of sickness than monarchs did in the fairly near past.

Why would we want class distinctions to disappear? If we want more advances and, y'know, progress -- more diseases eradicated and more comfortable housing -- we should want the people who are best at meeting consumers' standards to be at the top. (Also, all societies that eliminated class distinctions to date have been totalitarian hellholes from which people routinely risked their lives to escape. If someone wants to eliminate class distinctions, or freeze existing classes in place, their community should shoot them in self-defense).

There's not one word in that dribble you type making any case against a robust social safety net you're reptilian or active unions.

I get it dude. You have these completely sheltered textbook driven views that have led you to conclude without any firsthand knowledge that if only we got rid of welfare and 90% of government regulation we'd all be farting through silk overnight in the poor would be showered with I'm told riches and prosperity. The fact that you are such a zeld about it strikes me as cold-blooded, even downright reptilian. Banding words back and forth with a fanatic who who would gladly, unhesitating cause Untold economic havoc and misery for tens of Millions prove this point, and then deny it was his policies that led to such suffering, or frankly just not really care, is an utter waste of time.

The switch to conspiracy-theory rhetoric is fun, but not as much fun as your seamless shift on AAD from calling your opponents racist to vividly imagining them being the victims of hate crimes. Please do better next time.

(I like how your answer to me bringing up speaking to victims of multiple different famines is to call me completely sheltered. Have you ever met somebody that has been hungry? I know you haven't been yourself. Sorry that you speak only English and you have no memories of anything that happened before 2016; perhaps one day you'll either speak to another person or read a book. I'm not that optimistic, though; as vivid as the imagery was it seemed cribbed from particularly excitable local-news broadcasts.)

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

Nevertheless, you have to admire vosem's commitment to consistency. He'll come up with nonsense to defend his viewpoint, regardless of little evidence there is to support his viewpoint. In a world where most people shift their views because the Big Man tells them to, at least vosem has found religion.

[Trump Is A Maoist]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

I appreciate the effort you put into replying, but I was just joking around, to be honest.

As for the bolded, I think a more accurate way of describing it would be "libertarians want the right to get diarrhea / salmonella from their tap water / grocery store meat, and travel to their jobs on non-existent roads that nobody pays for".

[OSR stands with Israel]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The economy is far better today for the average person than it was in 1979 . Per Capita Median Wages is higher, Housing Prices in proportion to Disposable Income is actually lower today, food is way cheaper, and of course we are not facing a period of high employment and high inflation.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The economy is far better today for the average person than it was in 1979 . Per Capita Median Wages is higher, Housing Prices in proportion to Disposable Income is actually lower today, food is way cheaper, and of course we are not facing a period of high employment and high inflation.

It is true that "the economy is far better today for the average person". Unfortunately, "the average person" is a statistical abstraction who does not exist, just as the "average family" can have 1.9 children or whatever the figure is but no actual family can have 1.9 children. It is true that living standards for the lower half of the income distribution have improved but only because transfer payments have increased. Slowly but surely, we're winning the War on Poverty, thanks to the Great Society, which Republicans were never able to dismantle.

[Badger]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

Great point! Since air conditioning has been invented, all class distinctions have disappeared.

Or, something like that..?

Yes, since air conditioning has been invented, people lead lives more comfortable and more free of sickness than monarchs did in the fairly near past.

Why would we want class distinctions to disappear? If we want more advances and, y'know, progress -- more diseases eradicated and more comfortable housing -- we should want the people who are best at meeting consumers' standards to be at the top. (Also, all societies that eliminated class distinctions to date have been totalitarian hellholes from which people routinely risked their lives to escape. If someone wants to eliminate class distinctions, or freeze existing classes in place, their community should shoot them in self-defense).

There's not one word in that dribble you type making any case against a robust social safety net you're reptilian or active unions.

I get it dude. You have these completely sheltered textbook driven views that have led you to conclude without any firsthand knowledge that if only we got rid of welfare and 90% of government regulation we'd all be farting through silk overnight in the poor would be showered with I'm told riches and prosperity. The fact that you are such a zeld about it strikes me as cold-blooded, even downright reptilian. Banding words back and forth with a fanatic who who would gladly, unhesitating cause Untold economic havoc and misery for tens of Millions prove this point, and then deny it was his policies that led to such suffering, or frankly just not really care, is an utter waste of time.

The switch to conspiracy-theory rhetoric is fun, but not as much fun as your seamless shift on AAD from calling your opponents racist to vividly imagining them being the victims of hate crimes. Please do better next time.

(I like how your answer to me bringing up speaking to victims of multiple different famines is to call me completely sheltered. Have you ever met somebody that has been hungry? I know you haven't been yourself. Sorry that you speak only English and you have no memories of anything that happened before 2016; perhaps one day you'll either speak to another person or read a book. I'm not that optimistic, though; as vivid as the imagery was it seemed cribbed from particularly excitable local-news broadcasts.)

I'm glad you've spoken to people who survived famines. I'm disappointed the only thing you came away with is government intervention to avoid starvation must be avoided at all costs.

Again, you walking pile of smarm, I have had very close friends go on government assistance and I'll tell you first hand from talking with them that is a very very scary proposition. People don't want to be in that position no matter how much you and your ilk think it is just lazy people mooching off producers like you.

I'm also going to tell you that you and dead man's fantasy tribe about ripping away some mothers food stamps and telling her don't worry, you'll get a job as a part-time housekeeper without benefits in no time, is utter tripe. My friends in question lost their jobs in the great recession, and those government benefits for the only thing keeping the wolf from the door. It wasn't from their lack of gumption, work ethic, or somehow being lulled into dependence by the welfare state, or whatever other mindless drivel you and fellow Rand Fanboys convince yourselves up. These people who I know and love would have gone hungry and been evicted if it wasn't for that assistance. Hell, I was briefly on unemployment myself several years ago. And now my friends are all long since we employed and doing well, and yours truly is that about the 90th percentile household income in this country. Those checks were necessary for my family, my friends family, and not because we didn't work hard. And that no there wasn't just another job waiting around the corner.

Your myopia about such things because you "talked" to some people who went through famine and rightly disliked the Soviet Union in the 30s and Venezuela in the 2010s, but which anyone with a quarter ounce of discretion should be able to distinguish from the modern liberal Democratic welfare state. Unfortunately, that category clearly does not include you.

Good day sir.

[Badger]

As a reminder for people here who might benefit from hearing this:
-> vosem is a failed lawyer who has no credentials, expertise or training to interpret or understand empirical evidence about the economy

Failed lawyer? Last I heard he was in law school I think at Ohio state. What happened?

[Vosem]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The statistic that wages have not risen is largely itself due to demographic changes; if you disaggregate by race and gender then you will find that wages have in fact risen for every demographic group, and the fact that they haven't as a whole is an example of Simpson's Paradox (much like how in the 2000s among every income subcategory blacks had a higher turnout rate than whites, but overall whites had a higher turnout rate than blacks). Poorer people getting a chance to enter the United States, and obviously starting with fairly low household income, is not a bad thing.

My understanding is that much of the gains are concentrated in fairly few metropolitan areas -- it really is true that geographically lots of places are seeing no gains or backsliding. But the solution to that must surely be greater mobility, a topic I think I've read discussions of from you.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

Do you have any evidence to support this bold assertion? Monarchs didn't need vacuums or dishwashers or many modern appliances because they had servants. Monarchs lived in extremely large, spacious dwellings. Monarchs did not have to do any meaningful labor in order to live in these palatial estates - usually we think that the well-being of someone is improved based on their ability to enjoy leisure. Monarchs didn't have to perform any housework whatsoever. Is this true of poor Americans? As far as I can tell, many of them do not even own washing machines or dryers - laundromats remain a business in the US.

We often see people making arguments without actually thinking hard about what they're saying or spending any time questioning "why am I saying something when I haven't been shown serious, rigorous academic research supporting my claim?"

[Badger]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

So you are equating technological advances having improved people's lives as somehow justifying increased economic and class disparity?? It's harder than ever for younger families to afford a house or college for their kids wow economic gains of the top few tenths of a percent have skyrocketed, but your response is basically that that's okay because now we have penicillin, indoor plumbing, and Air conditioning?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

So you are equating technological advances having improved people's lives as somehow justifying increased economic and class disparity?? It's harder than ever for younger families to afford a house or college for their kids wow economic gains of the top few tenths of a percent have skyrocketed, but your response is basically that that's okay because now we have penicillin, indoor plumbing, and Air conditioning? ???5

The reason college costs have gone up is cause far more people go to college today than people did 50 years ago. As for home prices





https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2021/09/why-u-s-housing-prices-arent-as-crazy-as-you-think/

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The statistic that wages have not risen is largely itself due to demographic changes; if you disaggregate by race and gender then you will find that wages have in fact risen for every demographic group, and the fact that they haven't as a whole is an example of Simpson's Paradox (much like how in the 2000s among every income subcategory blacks had a higher turnout rate than whites, but overall whites had a higher turnout rate than blacks). Poorer people getting a chance to enter the United States, and obviously starting with fairly low household income, is not a bad thing.

My understanding is that much of the gains are concentrated in fairly few metropolitan areas -- it really is true that geographically lots of places are seeing no gains or backsliding. But the solution to that must surely be greater mobility, a topic I think I've read discussions of from you.

A very strange post given that if you bother clicking the link, you'll find that the median annual earnings of men, as computed by CPS-ASEC, have been flat from 1980 through 2017. There is a sudden upward trend but we've seen this before - it may or may not persist. So, no, this fun cheatcode you think you have discovered does not work. You may not simply assume away the stagnation of male wages in the United States as a triviality when they are a majority of the workforce...