The Fora: A Higher Education Community

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: secundem_artem on November 13, 2020, 12:03:02 PM

Poll
Question: Which Trumpist is the first one you'd like to see frogmarched in front of a grand jury?
Option 1: Cheeto Jesus himself votes: 16
Option 2: Bill Barr votes: 5
Option 3: Mike Pompeo votes: 0
Option 4: Mitch McConnell votes: 3
Option 5: One or more of Don Junior, Eric, Ivanka, Jared votes: 4
Option 6: One or more of Melania, Tiffany, Baron (cause he looks like a spoiled little sh!t) votes: 0
Title: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: secundem_artem on November 13, 2020, 12:03:02 PM
Let's not worry at this point about who has committed what, if any, indictable crimes.  If karma is truly a bee-otch, which of Orange Julius' inner circle should be the first against the wall to face charges?
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 12:06:24 PM
You do realize what a chilling prospect this is of changes of power being followed by purges? It doesn't have a good history......
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: secundem_artem on November 13, 2020, 12:11:34 PM
To quote HL Mencken, "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

We are now at that time.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 13, 2020, 12:19:59 PM
Dick Cheney and W, along with Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Yoo.

Then we can do the Cheezie in Chief and his acolytes.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: sprout on November 13, 2020, 01:48:01 PM
Giuliani needs to be on the list.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mamselle on November 13, 2020, 02:20:06 PM
You need an "All of the Above" choice, and one that says, "Select all that Apply" (interthreadulity)...

I think the way the French do it might be a good path to follow.

The court cases are inexorable, but they take a long time to get off the ground, so it's a little less of the "elect-and-purge" cycle, and more of an "All in good time" kind of thing.

(Thinking of Chirac, in particular)

M.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: Ruralguy on November 13, 2020, 02:23:21 PM
My guess is that somewhere between 0 and 2 of them will be indicted, serving about 1 year total in prison, if even that, between them.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: eigen on November 13, 2020, 02:52:39 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 12:06:24 PM
You do realize what a chilling prospect this is of changes of power being followed by purges? It doesn't have a good history......

I'm more worried about the "fire everyone before you leave" approach that's underway now, personally.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 13, 2020, 02:52:39 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 12:06:24 PM
You do realize what a chilling prospect this is of changes of power being followed by purges? It doesn't have a good history......

I'm more worried about the "fire everyone before you leave" approach that's underway now, personally.

What about AOC's "put them on lists" so they can be cancelled for life?
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: dismalist on November 13, 2020, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 13, 2020, 02:52:39 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 12:06:24 PM
You do realize what a chilling prospect this is of changes of power being followed by purges? It doesn't have a good history......

I'm more worried about the "fire everyone before you leave" approach that's underway now, personally.

What about AOC's "put them on lists" so they can be cancelled for life?

Oh, hell, do it as it was done in Salem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: eigen on November 13, 2020, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 13, 2020, 02:52:39 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 12:06:24 PM
You do realize what a chilling prospect this is of changes of power being followed by purges? It doesn't have a good history......

I'm more worried about the "fire everyone before you leave" approach that's underway now, personally.

What about AOC's "put them on lists" so they can be cancelled for life?

I think if someone wants to put together a list of who they want to boycott / not listen to, that's just as much of a part of free speech as anything else.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: kaysixteen on November 13, 2020, 09:11:19 PM
After the first fifty years, you probably won't want parole.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 06:26:09 AM
I appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: clean on November 14, 2020, 06:42:57 AM
QuoteI appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.

I concur.  I think that this thread is in poor taste. 

I add a quote from Gomer Pyle, "Shame, Shame, Shame".
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: marshwiggle on November 14, 2020, 07:00:37 AM
Quote from: clean on November 14, 2020, 06:42:57 AM
QuoteI appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.

I concur.  I think that this thread is in poor taste. 

I add a quote from Gomer Pyle, "Shame, Shame, Shame".

What boggles my mind is that, given how frequently the party in power switches, what goes around must inevitably come around, and yet people refuse to consider how it will be when (not if) the shoe is on the other foot.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mahagonny on November 14, 2020, 07:06:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 14, 2020, 07:00:37 AM
Quote from: clean on November 14, 2020, 06:42:57 AM
QuoteI appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.

I concur.  I think that this thread is in poor taste. 

I add a quote from Gomer Pyle, "Shame, Shame, Shame".

What boggles my mind is that, given how frequently the party in power switches, what goes around must inevitably come around, and yet people refuse to consider how it will be when (not if) the shoe is on the other foot.

Or the Mitt is on the other hand.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: spork on November 14, 2020, 07:19:36 AM
Many of those indictable have already been indicted/convicted/imprisoned: Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, George Papadopolous, and George Nader (who ought to be very interesting to QAnon morons as a serial convicted pedophile, but isn't).

Rudy Giuliani was neck deep in halting aid to Ukraine at Russia's behest, so I would definitely like to see him imprisoned if convicted.

My wife and I recently watched The Trial of the Chicago 7 on Netflix. She isn't originally from the USA and I had to explain to her that Attorney General John Mitchell, who is depicted at the beginning of the film, went to prison, along with many other members of the Nixon Administration. So this kind of thing isn't unheard of in the USA.

Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: eigen on November 14, 2020, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 06:26:09 AM
I appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.

The horror of wanting people who have been protected from prosecution due to positions of political power to be held accountable for their actions in a fair trial. That certainly is the exact same thing as "wanting political opponents dead".
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 14, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 06:26:09 AM
I appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.

Who said that the appropriate punishment for the violation of any law was death at the hands of institutionally-empowered actors? Oh, right. Conservatives, but only about non-white people.


See? Anyone can make their own straw person and play along. Prosecution ≠ death.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: secundem_artem on November 14, 2020, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: clean on November 14, 2020, 06:42:57 AM
QuoteI appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.

I concur.  I think that this thread is in poor taste. 

I add a quote from Gomer Pyle, "Shame, Shame, Shame".


Oh lighten up Francis.  After 4 years of listening to "Lock her up!  Lock her up!" a small bit of turn around seems like fair play.  And it's not as if I was serious in suggesting Baron Trump (age 14) be pulled from his parents and put in a cage.  I'll leave that kind of stuff to the the MAGA hats all now screaming fraud.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 02:34:46 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 14, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Prosecution ≠ death.

Didn't I read the phrase "up against the wall" earlier in this thread?

Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: dismalist on November 14, 2020, 02:43:58 PM
How do we get people to live together peacefully?

Federalism isn't popular with the left. How about some political cleansing, then?
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 14, 2020, 02:44:56 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 02:34:46 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 14, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Prosecution ≠ death.

Didn't I read the phrase "up against the wall" earlier in this thread?

Probably. But, what on earth do YOU think it means?

https://www.phrases.com/phrase/up-against-the-wall_45115

Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: marshwiggle on November 14, 2020, 03:07:28 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 14, 2020, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 06:26:09 AM
I appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.

The horror of wanting people who have been protected from prosecution due to positions of political power to be held accountable for their actions in a fair trial. That certainly is the exact same thing as "wanting political opponents dead".

Just to clarify: I have no problem with the normal wheels of justice investingating and posecuting lawbreakers; what does disturb me is the idea of any new political regime using the powers of office to kickstart or accelerate the process against their rivals. The whole "Lock her up!" thing four years ago was very disturbing for the same reason. In that case, after the election the mob seemed to lose interest.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mahagonny on November 14, 2020, 04:04:30 PM
Well, Donald decided to play rough, and that's what happens if you play rough.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 14, 2020, 02:44:56 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 02:34:46 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 14, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Prosecution ≠ death.

Didn't I read the phrase "up against the wall" earlier in this thread?

Probably. But, what on earth do YOU think it means?

https://www.phrases.com/phrase/up-against-the-wall_45115

I'm confused by your confusion.  "Up against the wall" is where they put you before they shoot you.  How do you not know that?  Then again, a forumite seemed never to have heard of the Berlin Wall earlier this year (was it you?), so nothing should surprise me anymore.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: dismalist on November 14, 2020, 05:44:23 PM
QuoteThen again, a forumite seemed never to have heard of the Berlin Wall earlier this year


I'll never forget that. It was the first time, ever, I got knocked off my perch in a political discussion. Just dropped my jaw. [No, it wasn't anyone on this thread so far.]
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mahagonny on November 15, 2020, 05:55:10 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 06:26:09 AM
I appreciate this thread for doing its small part to remind conservatives that our political opponents want us dead, thus justifying any action we can take to stop them.

Well, when you're 'progressive' it helps to have villainous hidebound adversaries for the perception that you're processing away from meanness instead of away from what sanity you still have left.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 15, 2020, 06:48:22 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 14, 2020, 02:44:56 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 02:34:46 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 14, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Prosecution ≠ death.

Didn't I read the phrase "up against the wall" earlier in this thread?

Probably. But, what on earth do YOU think it means?

https://www.phrases.com/phrase/up-against-the-wall_45115

I'm confused by your confusion.  "Up against the wall" is where they put you before they shoot you.  How do you not know that?  Then again, a forumite seemed never to have heard of the Berlin Wall earlier this year (was it you?), so nothing should surprise me anymore.

I know people think that. I should have phrased my question better, using why in place of what and adding that as the conclusion. I'm saying your interpretation is not what was implied in the context of indictments. I am also a big proponent of not having firing squads fire at walls.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: marshwiggle on November 15, 2020, 06:50:02 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 15, 2020, 06:48:22 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 14, 2020, 02:44:56 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 02:34:46 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 14, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Prosecution ≠ death.

Didn't I read the phrase "up against the wall" earlier in this thread?

Probably. But, what on earth do YOU think it means?

https://www.phrases.com/phrase/up-against-the-wall_45115

I'm confused by your confusion.  "Up against the wall" is where they put you before they shoot you.  How do you not know that?  Then again, a forumite seemed never to have heard of the Berlin Wall earlier this year (was it you?), so nothing should surprise me anymore.

I know people think that. I should have phrased my question better, using why in place of what and adding that as the conclusion. I'm saying your interpretation is not what was implied in the context of indictments. I am also a big proponent of not having firing squads fire at walls.

Typically they're firing at people; the walls are just there for the bullets that miss.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 15, 2020, 07:04:35 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 15, 2020, 06:50:02 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 15, 2020, 06:48:22 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 14, 2020, 02:44:56 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 14, 2020, 02:34:46 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 14, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Prosecution ≠ death.

Didn't I read the phrase "up against the wall" earlier in this thread?

Probably. But, what on earth do YOU think it means?

https://www.phrases.com/phrase/up-against-the-wall_45115

I'm confused by your confusion.  "Up against the wall" is where they put you before they shoot you.  How do you not know that?  Then again, a forumite seemed never to have heard of the Berlin Wall earlier this year (was it you?), so nothing should surprise me anymore.

I know people think that. I should have phrased my question better, using why in place of what and adding that as the conclusion. I'm saying your interpretation is not what was implied in the context of indictments. I am also a big proponent of not having firing squads fire at walls.

Typically they're firing at people; the walls are just there for the bullets that miss.

What a helpful clarification! Yes, I indeed thought they just fired at the walls! Silly me!

FYI, I am a 68 year old man who group up in the middle of the US watching Westerns and war movies. I know about firing squads.

It may help you to think that people with different opinions know nothing, but you are incorrect. For example, I don't think writingprof and financeguy are ignorant; I just disagree with them a lot regarding policy and peoples' intentions.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 15, 2020, 08:09:29 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 14, 2020, 03:07:28 PM


Just to clarify: I have no problem with the normal wheels of justice investingating and posecuting lawbreakers; what does disturb me is the idea of any new political regime using the powers of office to kickstart or accelerate the process against their rivals. The whole "Lock her up!" thing four years ago was very disturbing for the same reason. In that case, after the election the mob seemed to lose interest.

But that's not at all what anyone is advocating (except for the MAGA chuds who still want Hillary locked up, or Hunter Biden, etc.). What we're saying is that crimes were committed while in office, and those crimes need to be prosecuted.

I went back to the Bush administration, but that's because we have a slew of war crimes--including torture!--which have gone entirely unpunished, and that's entirely unacceptable. The cheese puff brigade has fewer of those on its hands, but it still has a whole slew of crimes on its hands (including some pretty horrifying crimes against humanity).
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 15, 2020, 09:04:56 AM
Trump family is in some danger in NY state, although probably nothing that would put them in handcuffs. Federal stuff will probably not happen "for the good of the country," and I agree that it is better to move on.... However, I wouldn't mind seeing some enforcement of Hatch Act. Petty corruption by Trump family is unfortunate, but hasn't done irreparable harm to the country imo, but people politicizing their positions in the bureaucracy is dangerous.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: ciao_yall on November 15, 2020, 10:54:15 AM
May I change my vote?

At first I put Cheetolini but now I'm thinking it shoudl be McConnell so he is no longer Senate Majority Leader and can't actually do anything.

Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: writingprof on November 15, 2020, 12:00:37 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 15, 2020, 10:54:15 AM
May I change my vote?

At first I put Cheetolini but now I'm thinking it shoudl be McConnell so he is no longer Senate Majority Leader and can't actually do anything.

I'm no expert, but it's possible that another Republican would take his place, perhaps even one who could count to fifty-one (or fifty-two) and make the appropriate deductions about his ability to stop Democratic legislation.  The problem for you is the ideology, not the man.  If socialism can't be discredited once and for all--if campus leftists of my acquaintance still hold a flame for Pol Pot--I doubt you're going to eradicate the principles that drive Cocaine Mitch.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: Tee_Bee on November 21, 2020, 10:12:49 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 15, 2020, 10:54:15 AM
May I change my vote?

At first I put Cheetolini but now I'm thinking it shoudl be McConnell so he is no longer Senate Majority Leader and can't actually do anything.

His wife is as corrupt as the day is long. Oh, to be a federal attorney for the district of....well, just about anywhere after January 20.

I am well tired of the high minded calls for "avoiding retribution" and this notion that "we don't prosecute our enemies after an election." This ultimately isn't about "our enemies." It's about investigating and prosecuting credible offenses against the United States. The president* and his underlings all took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Those who have failed to do so should rightly be charged and prosecuted. The president* and his rallies chanted "lock him/her up." We are fortunate that they had neither evidence of their targets' putative crimes, nor competent officials to carry out these idle threats. If in fact the president* and his family are guilty of tax fraud--for which a credible case exist--they should be tried. The Ukraine stuff probably isn't indictable, and the Emoluments Clause probably doesn't attach any more after January 20. But the other stuff? Just appoint an ambitious couple of federal attorneys for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and for the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia...and then whisper "sic 'em." A fella can dream....
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: dismalist on November 21, 2020, 10:25:46 PM
Trump lost the election, yet there are so many, many articles about Trump. Odd that is.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has nothing to offer aside form Trump.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: eigen on November 21, 2020, 11:12:57 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2020, 10:25:46 PM
Trump lost the election, yet there are so many, many articles about Trump. Odd that is.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has nothing to offer aside form Trump.

Maybe because Trump is throwing a tantrum that is putting people moving past the election on hold by claiming that he won the election and riling up his base to protest the 'steal'?
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: dismalist on November 21, 2020, 11:19:49 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 21, 2020, 11:12:57 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2020, 10:25:46 PM
Trump lost the election, yet there are so many, many articles about Trump. Odd that is.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has nothing to offer aside form Trump.

Maybe because Trump is throwing a tantrum that is putting people moving past the election on hold by claiming that he won the election and riling up his base to protest the 'steal'?

Great example! :-)
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mamselle on November 21, 2020, 11:27:45 PM
That's gone a bit quieter in the past week.

Still interested to see how it will play out, but maybe not so interested as to want to feed the glory-basking by reading or listening to anything about it.

..."Nothing to see here, you can move along now..."

M.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: eigen on November 22, 2020, 12:26:11 AM
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2020, 11:19:49 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 21, 2020, 11:12:57 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2020, 10:25:46 PM
Trump lost the election, yet there are so many, many articles about Trump. Odd that is.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has nothing to offer aside form Trump.

Maybe because Trump is throwing a tantrum that is putting people moving past the election on hold by claiming that he won the election and riling up his base to protest the 'steal'?

Great example! :-)

I think it's a fine line. If Biden move's too fast, they risk more accusations of stealing the election. I think everyone's just waiting it out.

The fact that congress is on a break and we're in the middle of growing shutdowns due to the pandemic also probably does not help.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: Anselm on November 22, 2020, 09:12:44 AM
I would like to see something done to whomever made it easier for restaurants to steal tips from their servers.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 09:51:18 AM
Yes. I tip directly, in cash, for that reason.

When I was eating at restaurants, that is.

In the Before-times.

M.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: writingprof on November 22, 2020, 09:52:22 AM
I would like to see something done to the people who raised the minimum wage above what the market demands, thus ensuring that waitresses of the future will be robots.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 09:53:08 AM
Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

M.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: eigen on November 22, 2020, 12:37:03 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 22, 2020, 09:52:22 AM
I would like to see something done to the people who raised the minimum wage above what the market demands, thus ensuring that waitresses of the future will be robots.

Or maybe our unemployment numbers will more accurately reflect the plight of many people in the US who are significantly underemployed.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: writingprof on November 22, 2020, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 09:53:08 AM
Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

M.

My god, who cares?  The answer is yes, but my "lived experience" has nothing to do with my ability to grasp basic economic concepts.

Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

Like this one.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: eigen on November 22, 2020, 01:32:46 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

The problem is that when people are underemployed at $10 an hour, we as a society don't see it as a problem and they are increasingly likely to fall through the cracks. There are also very few resources available to help those who are underemployed relative to those who are unemployed.

The perpetuation of an "underclass" of jobs that are not enough to live on is a bad thing for the country as a whole. Changing to fewer jobs that pay living wages focuses on the fact that we are not doing as well financially as a nation as we like to purport, and enables us to start looking for sustainable solutions long-term.

It's the same thing with adjuncts vs. FT jobs. Sure, more people are employed as adjuncts, but in unsustainable positions. Employing fewer people FT puts people out of work, but pushes the system towards sustainability and ensures those who can find a job are able to survive on the wages it pays.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 22, 2020, 01:32:46 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

The problem is that when people are underemployed at $10 an hour, we as a society don't see it as a problem and they are increasingly likely to fall through the cracks. There are also very few resources available to help those who are underemployed relative to those who are unemployed.

The perpetuation of an "underclass" of jobs that are not enough to live on is a bad thing for the country as a whole. Changing to fewer jobs that pay living wages focuses on the fact that we are not doing as well financially as a nation as we like to purport, and enables us to start looking for sustainable solutions long-term.

It's the same thing with adjuncts vs. FT jobs. Sure, more people are employed as adjuncts, but in unsustainable positions. Employing fewer people FT puts people out of work, but pushes the system towards sustainability and ensures those who can find a job are able to survive on the wages it pays.

But we have a safety net! Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP [food stamps] are the big ones, but there are countless others. If one wants to help the poor, one should give them money, individually or collectively, and perhaps advocate for giving them more money,  not make them unemployed.

[Adjuncts are not a special case.]
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: eigen on November 22, 2020, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 22, 2020, 01:32:46 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

The problem is that when people are underemployed at $10 an hour, we as a society don't see it as a problem and they are increasingly likely to fall through the cracks. There are also very few resources available to help those who are underemployed relative to those who are unemployed.

The perpetuation of an "underclass" of jobs that are not enough to live on is a bad thing for the country as a whole. Changing to fewer jobs that pay living wages focuses on the fact that we are not doing as well financially as a nation as we like to purport, and enables us to start looking for sustainable solutions long-term.

It's the same thing with adjuncts vs. FT jobs. Sure, more people are employed as adjuncts, but in unsustainable positions. Employing fewer people FT puts people out of work, but pushes the system towards sustainability and ensures those who can find a job are able to survive on the wages it pays.

But we have a safety net! Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP [food stamps] are the big ones, but there are countless others. If one wants to help the poor, one should give them money, individually or collectively, and perhaps advocate for giving them more money,  not make them unemployed.

[Adjuncts are not a special case.]

The goal isn't to make them unemployed. The goal is to make all jobs livable.

That may mean we, as a society, need to be more willing to pay for goods and services made by someone earning a living wage, and it may also mean we need to take a hard look at what jobs are available and how and where people are employed.

Having an underclass of jobs that do not pay a wage that enables living with an ability to pay for housing, food and medical costs but are counted as "employed" is a problem, and enables us to keep sweeping the bigger issue under the rug.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 02:19:43 PM
I keep thinking of Orwell as a plongeur...

M.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 22, 2020, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 22, 2020, 01:32:46 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

The problem is that when people are underemployed at $10 an hour, we as a society don't see it as a problem and they are increasingly likely to fall through the cracks. There are also very few resources available to help those who are underemployed relative to those who are unemployed.

The perpetuation of an "underclass" of jobs that are not enough to live on is a bad thing for the country as a whole. Changing to fewer jobs that pay living wages focuses on the fact that we are not doing as well financially as a nation as we like to purport, and enables us to start looking for sustainable solutions long-term.

It's the same thing with adjuncts vs. FT jobs. Sure, more people are employed as adjuncts, but in unsustainable positions. Employing fewer people FT puts people out of work, but pushes the system towards sustainability and ensures those who can find a job are able to survive on the wages it pays.

But we have a safety net! Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP [food stamps] are the big ones, but there are countless others. If one wants to help the poor, one should give them money, individually or collectively, and perhaps advocate for giving them more money,  not make them unemployed.

[Adjuncts are not a special case.]

The goal isn't to make them unemployed. The goal is to make all jobs livable.

That may mean we, as a society, need to be more willing to pay for goods and services made by someone earning a living wage, and it may also mean we need to take a hard look at what jobs are available and how and where people are employed.

Having an underclass of jobs that do not pay a wage that enables living with an ability to pay for housing, food and medical costs but are counted as "employed" is a problem, and enables us to keep sweeping the bigger issue under the rug.

Lovely! The cheapest way of doing that is through a wage subsidy! Earned Income Tax Credit, as I said above. We already have it.

I will join anyone on the hustings to raise the rate of subsidy.

The problem is that there are all kinds of nice sounding demands and nobody wants to pay for them.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 02:25:43 PM
Hmmm.....indictments, I think I came here because I had an indictment in mind....

Oh, yes, whomever is the press secretary today.

By tomorrow, they'll have been removed again, so it will be too late.

But certainly SOME press secretary should be indicted to go along with their four-year-long dances through the revolving doors of the past term.

Just a small, slight indictment, no need to upset anybody else.

But I think it should be considered at least a symbolic necessity, just for willfully misleading so many people in so many different ways.

M.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: kaysixteen on November 22, 2020, 09:03:51 PM
Even before the pandemic, many of the very wealthiest corporations in the country, owned by some of the wealthiest people, paid starvation wages to people who had little choice but to accept the positions (because the true level of the 'safety net' is appallingly deficient), and the pandemic has made things very much worse, whilst many of these selfsame corps have seen their stock prices skyrocket to unheard of heights as the forced closures of many of their small-fry, not sufficiently 'essential' competitors have been shuttered involuntarily for many months.   Yet those arguing against forced increases in the minimum wage seem strangely silent when asked why such corporations and their zillionaire owners should have their starvation wage peons' salaries greatly augmented by the taxpayers, who do have to pay for whatever passes for a 'safety net' that we actually have.   Irrespective of the actual negative effects on the lower-wage populations of such forced min wage increases (as opposed to tired talking point propaganda), why is the forced subsidies of people named Walton and Bezos just?
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 22, 2020, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 09:53:08 AM
Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

M.

My god, who cares?  The answer is yes, but my "lived experience" has nothing to do with my ability to grasp basic economic concepts.

Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

Like this one.

No need to be profane. I was trying to understand if there were any grounds for a sense of commonality, fellow-feeling, or empathy by which your position might be informed.

You do realize that in the US, servers typically only get 1/2 minimum wage, and are expected to make up the rest in tips? And that if unemployment is paid, it could well be half of that?

So that $10/hr becomes $5/hr, and it could then become $2.50.

And in many places, no serious CoL adjustments go through for years at a time?

Just interested to know if all the spiderweb theorizing is being spun out of a base in knowledge, or imagination.

M.
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: marshwiggle on November 23, 2020, 06:16:53 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 22, 2020, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 22, 2020, 09:53:08 AM
Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

M.

My god, who cares?  The answer is yes, but my "lived experience" has nothing to do with my ability to grasp basic economic concepts.

Quote from: dismalist on November 22, 2020, 01:02:25 PM
Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

Like this one.

No need to be profane. I was trying to understand if there were any grounds for a sense of commonality, fellow-feeling, or empathy by which your position might be informed.

You do realize that in the US, servers typically only get 1/2 minimum wage, and are expected to make up the rest in tips? And that if unemployment is paid, it could well be half of that?


Tipping in North America is something that messes with all kinds of wage discussions. (Lots of countries don't have it at all.) How many places doing only takeout, even before covid, still have the "tip" option on the electronic payment? What purpose does that remotely serve? Also, the expected income from tips varies vastly by the type of establishment; upscale places can make tips way bigger than "salary", while cheap places may get very few.


Some restaurants have actually gone to forbidding tipping, and paying their servers a higher base wage. It will be interesting to see over time how that is for customer and employee retention.


Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: kaysixteen on November 23, 2020, 03:42:31 PM
You say 'North America'-- what is SOP wrt tipping in Canada?
Title: Re: Who do you want to see indicted first?
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 23, 2020, 05:02:11 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 23, 2020, 03:42:31 PM
You say 'North America'-- what is SOP wrt tipping in Canada?

The minimum wage is the minimum wage (there's some variation in the amount across provinces, and some occasional variation by employment type--e.g. student, liquor business, etc.--but it's pretty minimal variation. Like, a buck.). Tips are extra, and aren't included in wages. Tipping is common across the country, although there are some establishments where it's not done; most importantly, there's no place in this country where your hourly wage is $1 because you're expected to make $30 or more a month in tips.

I think that's right, although you're all free to correct me: I won't fight it.