Reddy Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 02:11 PM) I don't want a CEO, and I don't want more technocratic fiddling around the edges and hoping for CEO's to raise wages on their own while actively fighting against regulations requiring them to do so. Yeah, Starbucks raised their sub-poverty wages to still-sub-poverty-but-a-little-better levels, but it's still difficult for their workers to get full time with benefits, to get consistent and predictable schedules. Starbucks still fights against unionization and formal workers' rights. These workers are ground to dust by poverty and a system that exploits them. Meanwhile, Schultz is worth several billion dollars. I don't want "treated like s***, but a little better than Walmart" to be hailed as some sort of victory and worthy goal. It's a larger complaint about our economic system as a whole that Schultz, as one of the wealthiest people in the world, is a symbol of. What should the progressive base get excited about with him? A 5% raise on your $9/hour wage with no hourly consistency? Having some health care when what we'd like is a universal health care system comparable to every other developed country in the world? What political causes is Schultz actually championing here? And whether you think it's valid or not, there are a lot of people out there who would probably abandon the Democrats for a generation if our choices in 2020 are two billionaires. I don't like the purity politics, either, but at some point you need to actually stand for something important and meaningful. There are millions of people being left behind by the modern economy who are more than willing to check out or to give a big "f*** you" to the whole system and vote for the idiot reality TV star clown because of it. e: some of the above is speaking for myself, some is trying to express the criticisms you'd expect to see from the more progressive wing of the base. No CEOs, no politicians, no celebrities.... who exactly DO we want to run for President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Where did I say I didn't want politicians? One of my complaints were running people with zero political/public service experience. I don't want Democrats to mimic the Republican party, and I don't think CEO's and celebrities are qualified to be POTUS. What about Schultz gets you excited and makes you think he'd excite the rest of the progressive base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 I don't even really know where the rumors are, seems like typical politico garbage. I just don't think he's history's greatest monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 05:57 PM) Where did I say I didn't want politicians? One of my complaints were running people with zero political/public service experience. I don't want Democrats to mimic the Republican party, and I don't think CEO's and celebrities are qualified to be POTUS. What about Schultz gets you excited and makes you think he'd excite the rest of the progressive base. Free college, healthcare, benefits for all Sbux employees. At the forefront of every social justice issue AND created one of the great American business success stories at the same time. He's, frankly, perfect. A good CEO is far more qualified to be President than a freshman senator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I'll take Larock Tobama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/news/econo...rism/index.html Trump was just complaining about providing $1 billion (he said "tens of billions) to the UN Green Fund....here he's costing US businesses $1.3 trillion in lost tourism revenue due to the immigration bans. Ironic. Karen Handel in GA-6 doesn't support a livable wage, hands more ad copy to Ossoff campaign. Seems like we've already had this particular argument before. https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgia-gop-cand...-022038168.html “I do not support a livable wage,” she said. “What I support is making sure we have an economy that is robust with low taxes and less regulation so that those small businesses that would be dramatically hurt if you imposed higher minimum wages on them are able to do what they do best: grow jobs and create good paying jobs for the people of the 6th District.” Georgia’s minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, the same as the federal minimum wage. The minimum livable wage for a single adult in the three counties that make up Georgia’s 6th District is $12.01 per hour, according to MIT’s Living Wage Calculator. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/georgia-runoff-po...-140002791.html Looks like Ossoff is leading but barely within the margin of error....+1, +1.5, +7, average of +3.2 Edited June 7, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 05:52 PM) Free college, healthcare, benefits for all Sbux employees. At the forefront of every social justice issue AND created one of the great American business success stories at the same time. He's, frankly, perfect. A good CEO is far more qualified to be President than a freshman senator "He's, frankly, perfect." Neoliberalism is something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 07:29 AM) "He's, frankly, perfect." Neoliberalism is something else. Why shouldn't a business be able to follow "neoliberal principles" if it leads to more profits? Generally, happier employees lead to higher customer service satisfaction...better benefits lead to loyalty, increased continuity and less need for allocating HR funds to constantly hiring and training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Not everyone wants to embrace The Gilded Age 2.0. Starbucks being marginally better than the competition while still having a multibillionaire CEO is still emblematic of our ever-growing income and wealth gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) "He's, frankly, perfect." Neoliberalism is something else. 1) I don't take that as the insult you intend it to be 2) Since when are free healthcare and college tuition "neoliberal" principles 3) Wanna actually contribute to the conversation instead of throwing out buzzwords you don't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 09:46 AM) Not everyone wants to embrace The Gilded Age 2.0. Starbucks being marginally better than the competition while still having a multibillionaire CEO is still emblematic of our ever-growing income and wealth gaps. free college and healthcare is something you consider "marginally" better than how Walmart treats its employees? Hiring veterans and refugees at a living wage? Donating massive amounts of money to progressive causes? Yeah ok. Y'all are so wrapped up in your Bernieism that you refuse to see it when there just MIGHT be a CEO out there doing some good, who agrees with your politics, and has the power to do something to make those politics reality. Edited June 7, 2017 by Reddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) Is Schultz actually committed to universal health care and free college tuition for all as public policy? The most I can find on concrete political statements from him is that he was whining about the deficit and balanced budgets back in 2011, which only reinforces the point that he's just another garbage centrist. e: starbucks doesn't pay a living wage to a big chunk of their employees. Walmart actually has (or at least had, as of a few years ago) a higher rate of health insurance for employees than Starbucks. Schultz became a billionaire on the backs of thousands of low-wage workers who struggle to make ends meet. Even if he's better than others (he is!), he's still a symptom of what the more progressive wing of the party sees as a broken system. Edited June 7, 2017 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 12:25 PM) Is Schultz actually committed to universal health care and free college tuition for all as public policy? The most I can find on concrete political statements from him is that he was whining about the deficit and balanced budgets back in 2011, which only reinforces the point that he's just another garbage centrist. e: starbucks doesn't pay a living wage to a big chunk of their employees. Walmart actually has (or at least had, as of a few years ago) a higher rate of health insurance for employees than Starbucks. Listen, he isn't running yet, so I don't know where he'll officially land on policy. It'd be silly for me to guess. I'm also not saying I WILL support him. I just think he has a unique package to bring to the table, and I'm interested to see what he does with it. I've always admired the way he ran Starbucks and the way he was always out in front on social issues and taking care of employees. He's not afraid to make a politically unpopular move when it's the right thing (see refugees) and I applaud that. That's why at this stage I give him the benefit of the doubt and am interested in seeing more. Obviously we can debate this further in a couple years haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) I agree that capitalism is broken, but it's not going away, no matter how much the green party screams about it. Shultz, to me, seems like a pretty damn good way to make progress within the system that we're going to have whether I like it or not (I don't) Edited June 7, 2017 by Reddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 You already said he was "perfect" though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:10 PM) You already said he was "perfect" though from a marketing/branding perspective. obviously I have no idea what his platform would be. I really give you guys too much credit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 He's got the perfect brand but you have no idea what his platform would actually be. Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:35 PM) He's got the perfect brand but you have no idea what his platform would actually be. Okay. Brand =/= Platform I'm literally in a political communications course as we speak, talking about this very thing. Okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I'm loving the packaging on New Bleach 2.0! Sounds tasty! Everyone pour a big glass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:40 PM) I'm loving the packaging on New Bleach 2.0! Sounds tasty! Everyone pour a big glass! I'm sorry nuance isn't your thing, today. It's weird, because you can usually handle it. Brand is not policy platform. K? That's all I care that you take away from this. Bernie's brand was "man of the people" "not a millionaire" "one of us" "speaks his mind" "authentic" "principled", etc. Are those policy positions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:45 PM) I'm sorry nuance isn't your thing, today. It's weird, because you can usually handle it. Brand is not policy platform. K? That's all I care that you take away from this. Bernie's brand was "man of the people" "not a millionaire" "one of us" "speaks his mind" "authentic" "principled", etc. Are those policy positions? That "brand" was built off of policy positions that reinforced it. He was a "man of the people" and wasn't (and wasn't for) millionaires, and it was clear from his policies. What is Schultz's brand, what is supposed to be exciting about it, what are the tangible effects people should care about? Because I'm pretty sure "billionaire white guy CEO with zero government or public service background" isn't going to be the brand that the progressive wing of the party rallies behind. There are going to be annoying purity progressives out there for sure who won't really accept any candidate and only need one reason not to vote for someone. But there are plenty of less rigidly pure progressives who nonetheless would be pretty unhappy with more centrist technocracy behind a billionaire CEO figurehead. Dismissing those people, even if you don't think they're being rational or whatever, is only going to deepen the rift in the Democratic party. e: you were also starting off talking about policy-type positions like health care and college and social justice issues. There was no mention of "brand" when you called him "perfect" Edited June 7, 2017 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:52 PM) That "brand" was built off of policy positions that reinforced it. He was a "man of the people" and wasn't (and wasn't for) millionaires, and it was clear from his policies. What is Schultz's brand, what is supposed to be exciting about it, what are the tangible effects people should care about? Because I'm pretty sure "billionaire white guy CEO with zero government or public service background" isn't going to be the brand that the progressive wing of the party rallies behind. There are going to be annoying purity progressives out there for sure who won't really accept any candidate and only need one reason not to vote for someone. But there are plenty of less rigidly pure progressives who nonetheless would be pretty unhappy with more centrist technocracy behind a billionaire CEO figurehead. Dismissing those people, even if you don't think they're being rational or whatever, is only going to deepen the rift in the Democratic party. e: you were also starting off talking about policy-type positions like health care and college and social justice issues. There was no mention of "brand" when you called him "perfect" Those were things he's done. They don't inherently reflect a potential platform, but they're reasons I'm hopeful and interested in hearing more about him. Is this seriously worth this much of your energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I'm sitting on lots of long, boring conference calls lately. I guess it was worth your time to post more cheap shots though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Let the record reflect that Reddy thinks a rich white male (gasp!) is the "perfect" candidate because of his marketability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 04:19 PM) Let the record reflect that Reddy thinks a rich white male (gasp!) is the "perfect" candidate because of his marketability. Are jews white people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts