2018 Democrats thread

[Jerksticks]

 

1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:

 

 

[Jerksticks]

3 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

 

Who are you to decide what people do for a living?  In no way am I deciding what people do for a living or what they do to supplement their income.

The rules for independent contractors are clear, very few people are actually independent contractors if you apply the law (ironic because one party is always telling me about us being a "nation of laws).   Yes they are very clear!  I respectfully disagree that applying the law qualifies most ICs as employees.  Actually most ICs are ICs because the IRS has very clear tests that one must pass.  I'd argue most ICs in most fields pass these tests.  In this case, the ICs of Uber and Instacart are providing their own tools (cars).  They are never told where to be or when to be there.  They have no obligation to work.  They simply take on jobs (rides) if they want.  I'm no lawyer but I feel like I could easily win any court case for Uber.  Each of the 20 can easily be passed.

Why does uber fail?

Lets take IL. In IL everyone is PRESUMED to be an employee.   Here's where I will concede a bit.  State laws can vary.  I don't live in Illinois, but don't these ICs pass your C with flying colors?  Are they not engaged in an independently established trade (driving)?  

 

 

The key to the failure of Uber is C. In order for an uber driver to be a true IC, they must basically be a driver for a living. Now if someone drives for both Uber and Lyft, they could be a IC. But again, the presumption is that they are an employee. The reason most people fail C, is because C is the true test. If you are a plumber, you work for me, you work for my neighbor, you work for the guy across the street. That is a true independent contractor.  I mean this with respect, but I think Uber's lawyer would laugh at this argument.  He'd tear it to shreds.  Where does Illinois or the Fed say that a person must do their contracting for a living?  Why can't a person do multiple things?  Say I make urinal cakes full time at the urinal cake plant, but I'm also damn good at knitting.  I can knit 500 shirts in an hour!  So sometimes the local sweater maker calls me and says, "Hey, I have a job.  I need 1000 sweaters knitted by the end of the week, think you have time to take on the job?"  Am I supposed to decline because I don't knit full time?  Am I supposed to cry to the government that I'm being exploited?  The government is forcing me to not take the extra money because I'm not a full-time knitter?  I can't be 1099ed for a side job?  What if I do go into knitting full time because there's more money in it and the one sweater shop pays me so well that I don't care to shop my skills?  Why can't I full-time knit, crush contact after contract and get 1099ed?

The Uber driver only works for Uber. He does not really work for me, because I dont pay him directly. He cant charge me what he wants. (edit) In fact your argument that its not a career, actually proves that they are not independent contractors as the test requires that it be a trade, occupation or profession...  Again, I don't think this one holds up either.  I know nothing about Uber but I imagine each ride is considered a job, a separate contract.  The IC driver doesn't work for you the rider, he takes contracts from Uber.  If your argument were true then the whole construction industry would crumble.  If a client hires me to build an addition onto their home somebody has to take on the plumbing portion of the job.  I'm free to hire and set a contract price for the plumbing portion of the job.  But now he can't take the job because the homeowner isn't paying him directly?  He's not an independent contractor, he's my employee and I need to give him benefits?  

Now most companies have found a way around this, which is, you force your independent contractors to form LLCs/Corps, and then you contract with the company not the person. That way it is impossible for them to be an independent contractor. Agreed.  Sometimes shady but since you bring up the law, it's usually lawful.

Also, how did Uber outsmart Taxi companies? Taxi companies are subject to laws that make them uncompetitive. In Chicago Taxi cabs are required by law to charge X amount of dollars per mile, per minute, per flag. These laws were created to originally protect the consumer. But Uber is able to operate and not forced to follow these laws, so they undercut taxis.  Uber outsmarted taxi companies by having drivers provide their own cars (tools)!!!  And they don't tell them where to be!  They work their own hours!  They lawfully used the IC rules!  Outsmarted the crap out of the industry and peed on the ashes.

Taxi cab costs roughly 2x as much as an uber, so as long as the uber surge is less than 2x it is cheaper than a taxi.  I hope you understand that I've responded respectfully to your points.  Not trying to pick a fight at all or argue the morality of Employee/IC.  I just think Uber & Company are lawfully exploiting a legal loophole. I'm just a guy who makes his living solely through the use of ICs, for better or worse.  And all the ICs I use wouldn't have it any other way, but that's construction.  But I'm willing to bet most Uber drivers like the set up and think it's pretty cool that they work their own hours to supplement their income.  Sure, some are using it as a primary source while they look for a better job, but most probably lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of completely desperate to just for fun.  Just looking for some more beans in most cases.  And I don't know for sure, but I bet it's the taxi unions who are lobbying Mr. Sanders here.  I doubt it has anything to do with helping out poor IC drivers.  I don't know if there are actually taxi unions but it would make a lot more sense where this is coming from.   Always about the money.  Well, Go Sox!

 

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Jerksticks

[caulfield12]

Uber drivers definitely aren’t in it for the money.

A new working paper from researchers at Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reports that drivers for the ride-hailing company earn a pretax profit of only $3.37 an hour (or $661 a month) after expenses. Lyft drivers took home similarly paltry sums.

As a result of this meager payout, 74 percent of drivers earn less than their state’s minimum wage. And 30 percent of drivers actually lose money once vehicle expenses are taken into account.

Drivers earning the median amount of revenue make $0.59 per mile driven, but since average expenses work out to $0.30 per mile, the driver’s overall profit is only $0.29 for each mile.

The conclusions are based on a survey of over 1,100 Uber drivers. Researchers analyzed drivers’ revenue, how many miles they drove and what type of car they used. They then compared that information with car insurance and maintenance costs from Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book and data on gas prices from the Environmental Protection Agency.

http://observer.com/2018/03/uber-driver-profit-stanford-mit-study/

 

The Future of Work in the Uber Economy

http://bostonreview.net/us/steven-hill-uber-economy-individual-security-accounts

 

For example, suppose Donna is employed twenty hours a week by a hairdresser, contracts for 10 hours a week with TaskRabbit, and drives 10 shifts for Uber. She would earn 50 percent of her benefits from the hairdresser, 25 percent from TaskRabbit, and another percentage based on her wages driving for Uber. That would amount to earning over three-fourths of her full benefits (based on a forty-hour work week). Or suppose George contracts for 14 hours a week with Upwork, drives 10 shift for Lyft, makes 15 deliveries for Postmates and does seven gigs cleaning houses for Handy. He would earn a percentage of his benefits from each company, prorated to the number of hours worked or a percentage of his wages.

How much would all of this cost? Surprisingly, implementing such a multiemployer safety net based on Individual Security Accounts would not be that expensive. We can make pretty decent estimates, including the amount of employers’ contributions for each worker, by looking at how much employers pay now for their regular employees, which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates on a regular basis. Based on those numbers, a basic safety net for most 1099 workers (who tend to be services, sales, and office workers in the private sector) could be implemented if employers chipped in less than $2 per hour into each employee’s Individual Security Account. That minimum basket would be composed of worker supports that are already legally required for regular W-2 employees—in other words, Social Security, Medicare, federal and state unemployment insurance, and injured workers compensation.

If we wanted to make the safety net a bit more generous—to also include health insurance, long- and short-term disability insurance, and five paid sick days and five paid vacation days—employers would need to pay only about $2.27 per hour for service sector workers and $4.19 per hour for sales and office workers to pay for the entire safety net package. More expensive plans could be offered, depending on one’s ability to pay i.e. Gold, Silver and Bronze Plans, much like the Affordable Care Act’s setup for health care. We could also phase in certain benefits over time to get a program like this up and running, and then build on it over the years (that model reflects the history of Social Security, which initially in the 1930s had modest benefits. Over time, as it proved itself to be economically useful as well as popular, it was expanded). That’s a small amount of money for employers to pay into their employees’ ISAs to provide a safety net for millions of 1099 workers who currently have no benefits or job security.

What it comes down to is this: there’s absolutely no reason why a business should be able to evade paying a couple dollars more per hour per worker to provide a safety net, just because that business hired a freelancer, temp, contractor or franchise. And regardless of how many employers a person works for, a worker should not be denied the civilized and modern-day necessity of having access to a support system she needs for herself and her family. The principle of this system is simple: the 1099/independent contractor loophole must be closed.

Edited May 11, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

 

[GoSox05]

I saw some coverage of the Teacher walkouts on Fox News.  They were super nervous about it and compared the situation to Venezuela. 

[Soxbadger]

8 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

 

 

Jerksticks,

 

The IRS qualifications are irrelevant because they are only for tax purposes. The only part that matters is the IL employment rules (and every state has different ones, but some use the same ABC test that I posted above.)

 

As for your other arguments, the Uber lawyers would have an uphill battle. The most recent decision on this matter ruled by the California Supreme Court: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-superior-court-34584

With an article explaining:

 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c6a195a4-7ab9-4670-9ccc-f9aa57f10cd3

Quote

3. Part

? Is the worker customarily engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the
work performed for the hiring entity?
Third, as the situations that gave rise to the suffer or permit to work
language disclose, the suffer or permit to work standard, by expansively defining
who is an employer, is intended to preclude a business from evading the
prohibitions or responsibilities embodied in the relevant wage orders directly or
indirectly — through indifference, negligence, intentional subterfuge, or
misclassification. It is well established, under all of the varied standards that have
been utilized for distinguishing employees and independent contractors, that a
business cannot unilaterally determine a worker’s status simply by assigning the
worker the label “independent contractor” or by requiring the worker, as a
(footnote continued from previous page)
harvesting work was outside its usual course of business because the company did
not currently own any timber harvesting equipment itself, the court upheld an
administrative ruling that the harvesting work was “not ‘merely incidental’ to [the
company’s] business, but rather was an ‘integral part of’ that business.” (714 A.2d
at p. 821.) By contrast, in Great N. Constr., Inc. v. Dept. of Labor, supra, 161
A.3d at page 1215, the Vermont Supreme Court held the hiring entity, a general
construction company, had established that the specialized historic restoration
work performed by the worker in question was outside the usual course of the
company’s business within the meaning of part B, where the work involved the
use of specialized equipment and special expertise that the company did not
possess and did not need for its usual general commercial and residential work.
(See also, e.g., Appeal of Niadni, Inc. (2014) 166 N.H. 256 [performance of live
entertainers within usual course of business of plaintiff resort which advertised
and regularly provided entertainment]; Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical
Soc’y v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (Conn. 1996) 679 A.2d
347, 351-352 [art instructor who taught art classes at museum performed work
within the usual course of the museum’s business, where museum offered art
classes on a regular and continuous basis, produced brochures announcing the art
courses, class hours, registration fees and instructor’s names, and discounted the
cost of the classes for museum members].
73
condition of hiring, to enter into a contract that designates the worker an
independent contractor. (See, e.g., Borello, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 349, 358-359;
Rutherford Food, supra, 331 U.S. at p. 729.) This restriction on a hiring
business’s unilateral authority has particular force and effect under the wage
orders’ broad suffer or permit to work standard.
As a matter of common usage, the term “independent contractor,” when
applied to an individual worker, ordinarily has been understood to refer to an
individual who independently has made the decision to go into business for
himself or herself. (See, e.g., Borello, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 354 [describing
independent contractor as a worker who “has independently chosen the burdens
and benefits of self-employment”].) Such an individual generally takes the usual
steps to establish and promote his or her independent business — for example,
through incorporation, licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide the
services of the independent business to the public or to a number of potential
customers, and the like. When a worker has not independently decided to engage
in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an
independent contractor by the unilateral action of a hiring entity, there is a
substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an
applicable wage order through misclassification. A company that labels as
independent contractors a class of workers who are not engaged in an
independently established business in order to enable the company to obtain the
economic advantages that flow from avoiding the financial obligations that a wage
order imposes on employers unquestionably violates the fundamental purposes of
the wage order. The fact that a company has not prohibited or prevented a worker
74
from engaging in such a business is not sufficient to establish that the worker has
independently made the decision to go into business for himself or herself.30
Accordingly, in order to satisfy part C of the ABC test, the hiring entity
must prove that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established
trade, occupation, or business.31
30
Courts in other states that apply the ABC test have held that the fact that the
hiring business permits a worker to engage in similar activities for other
businesses is not sufficient to demonstrate that the worker is “ ‘customarily
engaged in an independently established . . . business’ ” for purposes of part (C) of
that standard. (JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator (Conn. 2003) 828 A.2d 609,
613; see Midwest Property Recovery, Inc. v. Job Service of North Dakota (N.D.
1991) 475 N.W.2d 918, 924; McGuire v. Dept. of Employment Security (Utah
Ct.App. 1989) 768 P.2d 985, 988 [“the appropriate inquiry under part (C) is
whether the person engaged in covered employment actually has such an
independent business, occupation, or profession, not whether he or she could have
one”]; see also In re Bargain Busters, Inc. (Vt. 1972) 287 A.2d 554, 559
[explaining that under part C of the ABC test, “ ‘[t]he adverb “independently”
clearly modifies the word “established”, and must carry the meaning that the trade,
occupation, profession or business was established, independently of the employer
or the rendering of the personal service forming the basis of the claim’ ”].
31
In Brothers Const. Co. v. Virginia Empl. Comm’n (Va.Ct.App. 1998) 494
S.E.2d 478, 484, the Virginia Court of Appeal concluded that the hiring entity had
failed to prove that its siding installers were engaged in an independently
established business where, although the installers provided their own tools, no
evidence was presented that “the installers had business cards, business licenses,
business phones, or business locations” or had “received income from any party
other than” the hiring entity. (See also, e.g., Boston Bicycle Couriers v. Deputy
Dir. Of the Div. of Empl. & Training (Mass. App.Ct. 2002) 778 N.E.2d 964, 971
[hiring entity, a same-day pickup and delivery service, failed to establish that
bicycle courier was engaged in an independently established business under part C
of the ABC test, where entity did not present evidence that courier “held himself
out as an independent businessman performing courier services for any
community of potential customers” or that he “had his own clientele, utilized his
own business cards or invoices, advertised his services or maintained a separate
place of business and telephone listing”]; cf., e.g., Southwest Appraisal Grp., LLC
v. Adm’r, Unemployment Compensation Act (Conn. 2017) 155 A.3d 738, 741-752
[administrative agency erred in determining that hiring entity failed to establish
(footnote continued on next page)
75
It bears emphasis that in order to establish that a worker is an independent
contractor under the ABC standard, the hiring entity is required to establish the
existence of each of the three parts of the ABC standard. Furthermore, inasmuch
as a hiring entity’s failure to satisfy any one of the three parts itself establishes that
the worker should be treated as an employee for purposes of the wage order, a
court is free to consider the separate parts of the ABC standard in whatever order
it chooses. Because in many cases it may be easier and clearer for a court to
determine whether or not part B or part C of the ABC standard has been satisfied
than for the court to resolve questions regarding the nature or degree of a worker’s
freedom from the hiring entity’s control for purposes of part A of the standard, the
significant advantages of the ABC standard — in terms of increased clarity and
consistency — will often be best served by first considering one or both of the
latter two parts of the standard in resolving the employee or independent
contractor question. (See, e.g., Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc. (D.Mass.
2010) 707 F.Supp.2d 80, 82 [considering only part B of the ABC standard];
Coverall N. America v. Div. of Unemployment (Mass. 2006) 857 N.E.2d 1083,
1087 [considering only part C of the ABC standard]; Boston Bicycle Couriers v.
Deputy Dir. of the Div. of Empl. & Training, supra, 778 N.E.2d at p. 968 [same].
(footnote continued from previous page)
that auto repair appraisers were customarily engaged in an independently
established business based solely on the lack of evidence that appraisers had
actually worked for other businesses, where appraisers had obtained their own
independent licenses, possessed their own home offices, provided their own
equipment, printed their own business cards, and sought work from other
companies].
76

http://uberlawsuit.com/

Quote

In 2016, we reached a proposed settlement with Uber under which it would pay up to $100 million and make some significant changes in its policies.  However, the court declined to approve the settlement. The court’s concern was largely with the settlement’s reduction in the massive potential penalties that could be recovered (mostly for the State of California) under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

So I disagree that its as easy as a case as you think. Uber already tried to settle in California for $100mil but the court rejected the settlement due to the fact that California wanted to fine them more.

I would suspect that in the next few years Uber will require people to create Corps/LLCs to work for them. That is the only way I allow clients to use independent contractors unless it is a clear IC relationship. IE The other person fits the bolded above.

Whether or not that is shady, is not my problem. My job is to make sure that my clients arent hit for improper classification. Its really easy. Uber was just sloppy and they may have to pay because of it. 

(edit)

 

And its an interesting conversation, I think that my interpretation is more right, but that doesnt mean a judge couldnt disagree with me. I have a pretty good amount of experience in the area, but I have actually never litigated the case because none of my clients have been sued for it. I usually am advising the entity hiring the independent contractor, so my job is to take your position in the argument. But for liability reasons, the safest answer is I make a condition of the work be that the worker form an entity. 

I presume in the future they will make rules to prevent this. But thats not my job. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Soxbadger

[caulfield12]

Speaking of taxi services, the Chinese Uber had their second murdered passenger (first a teacher, now a flight attendant) in three years

We are deeply saddened by and sorry about the tragedy that happened to Ms. Li.  No words can express our deep remorse in the face of such an enormity,” Didi said in an updated statement today. “Our special task force is working closely with law enforcement agencies with the utmost effort. The murderer needs to be brought to justice; and Ms Li and her family deserve a just answer.”

Directly referring to security concerns surrounding its platform, Didi said, “Please be assured we will review thoroughly all our business practices to prevent such an incident from happening again.”

On Thursday evening, Didi issued a reward up to CNY1 million (USD157,600) for information leading to the perpetrator’s arrest and published the suspect’s name, identification number, phone number and photo.

...

However, Didi stressed that the company has closely cooperated with police to conduct background screening of vehicle owners, to exclude criminal record holders, fugitives, drug addicts, and people with a history of mental illness sufferers. They can only take orders on the platform after they pass the review.

Didi served 7.4 billion user trips last year while the number of daily fare orders exceeded 30 million with 40 million trips completed, according to data released by Didi Chuxing CEO Cheng Wei.

The huge scale of orders also means great security challenges. In many cases, Didi not only has to bear legal responsibilities, but also should consider social and moral costs.

As a travel platform, Didi cannot operate by using all of its own drivers like a taxi firm. Even if it is able to strictly control all drivers, it cannot guarantee that all drivers can comply with the law during the course of their work. 

In March of this year, Didi announced the launch of a security service based on the existing security system. However, this service only covered its Designated Driver and DiDi Express services, without including the car-sharing service.

The lesson for Didi this time is that while continuously improving Designated Driving and DiDi Express security systems, it also need to constantly update security mechanisms for its ride-hitching service.

http://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/didi-faces-security-challenges-after-murder-21-year-old-flight-attendant

[caulfield12]

There’s now clear evidence that anti-poverty programs like welfare and Social Security work

Surprise, surprise.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-now-clear-evidence-anti-poverty-programs-like-welfare-social-security-work-194733608.html

The research found that all programs except for the EITC “sharply” reduces deep poverty, which is defined as 50% below the poverty line, which is an income of $12,140 for an individual and $20,780 for a family of three.

The EITC has a bigger impact for families around 150% of the poverty line, an income level often described as “working poor.” The researchers called the tax credit, along with SNAP, the “most effective” of the means-tested programs.

For the elderly, Wu said the research found that Social Security benefits “single-handedly slashes poverty by 75%.” Social Security’s overall effect on all poverty is also enormous, responsible for by far the largest poverty reduction among all these programs, the study said.

When it comes to alleviating deep poverty, Wu said, “many of the means-tested transfers (like SSI, SNAP, and housing assistance) play a substantially larger role than Social Security, which pays out more for those who put more in.

Asked what he would emphasize for politicians and policymakers, given what the study has found, Wu pointed to the study’s bottom line.

“Many of these government programs do have pronounced effects on poverty, especially if you look at groups that the programs are designed to target,” said Wu.

 

[Jerksticks]

On 5/11/2018 at 5:43 PM, caulfield12 said:

There’s now clear evidence that anti-poverty programs like welfare and Social Security work

Surprise, surprise.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-now-clear-evidence-anti-poverty-programs-like-welfare-social-security-work-194733608.html

The research found that all programs except for the EITC “sharply” reduces deep poverty, which is defined as 50% below the poverty line, which is an income of $12,140 for an individual and $20,780 for a family of three.

The EITC has a bigger impact for families around 150% of the poverty line, an income level often described as “working poor.” The researchers called the tax credit, along with SNAP, the “most effective” of the means-tested programs.

For the elderly, Wu said the research found that Social Security benefits “single-handedly slashes poverty by 75%.” Social Security’s overall effect on all poverty is also enormous, responsible for by far the largest poverty reduction among all these programs, the study said.

When it comes to alleviating deep poverty, Wu said, “many of the means-tested transfers (like SSI, SNAP, and housing assistance) play a substantially larger role than Social Security, which pays out more for those who put more in.

Asked what he would emphasize for politicians and policymakers, given what the study has found, Wu pointed to the study’s bottom line.

“Many of these government programs do have pronounced effects on poverty, especially if you look at groups that the programs are designed to target,” said Wu.

 

 Not arguing either side of this, but couldn’t this be summarized as “Give people stuff = people have more stuff”?  

 

I don’t get the discovery.  If I give you 20 bucks you now have 20 more bucks.  

 

I don’t think anybody is arguing that programs keep people alive.  I think the fight is about the line of making more money.  Cross it and you end up with less.  So why try to cross it.  I wonder what 50-100 years from now looks like. 

[greg775]

On 5/8/2018 at 9:13 PM, caulfield12 said:

 

I give Amy Schumer credit. Her standup before and after the Trump election has sucked. She has seemed an annoying b**** in public and in her act. Last night I thought she reinvented herself nicely on SNL. She had a funny, non politico monologue in which she came across as funny, even cute. Her performance in the actual skits was excellent and even funny. Nice reinvention. Nice performance.

[caulfield12]

Greg, #metoo is coming after you now...

[greg775]

7 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Greg, #metoo is coming after you now...

Oops was I condescending? I expected a bitter comic in the monologue and she was great. I loved the skit where she picked up another woman at the bar as Kate McKinnon is so damn funny. I also liked Kansas Citian Heidi Gardner as the teenage movie review critic. She's pretty talented. Will be interesting to see if Gardner is the next SNL cast member to become a star. Seems like McKinnon hasn't had as many skits of late. She finally had a couple last night and she's still very funny. Kenan Thompson is also extremely funny.

Edited May 14, 2018 by greg775

[caulfield12]

No, for referring to any woman these days as a b--ch...or acting like one.

We're only supposed to think it internally, but not articulate it.

 

[greg775]

52 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

No, for referring to any woman these days as a b--ch...or acting like one.

We're only supposed to think it internally, but not articulate it.

 

Oops. I get a kick how the liberal news outlets review the show every week. One reviewer headline said, "Schumer blasts chef husband for the way he proposed'    It was a funny bit in her monologue how he threw a box at her when she woke up in the morning and proposed. Geezus. It obviously was a joke. Just like all the old comics used to make up shit about their spouses in their standup. Gee review person, Schumer was doing a comedy monologue, not a serious Q and A from the crowd about how her husband proposed. It obviously was a funny bit. I bet the guy did a proper crazy proposal. He's marrying Amy Schumer for gawd sakes.

[caulfield12]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/future-american-left.html?action=click&module=Associated&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&contentCollection=David Brooks

The Future of the American Left

 

The first would be to rewrite rules to redistribute wealth. In an anthology called “Reflections on the Future of the Left,” Baker imagines ways this might be done: impose a tax on financial transactions to weaken Wall Street’s power; change monetary policies to give full employment priority; shorten the workweek to tighten labor markets; and change corporate law to make it easier to cut executive pay.

The second task would be to ensure economic security for all. This would involve raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, providing universal basic income and having the federal government provide a paying job to all who want one.

I would disagree with this agenda on pragmatic policy grounds, but at least it would be humane. It’s a positive, universalist agenda that aims at social solidarity and national cohesion — we’re all in this together. It would be, as Sheri Berman writes in Dissent, enchanted with a radical idealism.

Nonetheless, I don’t think this is the leftism we will wind up with. Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right. It is based on a scarcity mentality, the idea that life is a zero-sum war between us and them. It emphasizes division and conflict, not solidarity and cohesion. It draws out the authoritarian tendencies in any movement. On the right, tribalism brings us the ethnic authoritarianism of Donald Trump. On the left, it seems likely to bring us the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez.

You can see authoritarianism entering the left through two avenues. The first is nationalism. Not long ago, most of the American left tended to think transnationally — partly because problems like climate change are global, partly because it’s hard to regulate a global economy nation by nation, partly because progressives used to be psychologically averse to nationalism.

But national sovereignty is not withering away. Left-wing hostility toward European Union-type multilateral organizations is at record highs. Now a lot of progressive economic thinking is nakedly nationalistic. Bernie Sanders in 2015 derided a more open immigration policy as a “Koch brothers proposal.” It’s the old xenophobia — us or them, screw or be screwed. On trade, the left-wing populists sound like Trump.

The second stream fueling economic authoritarianism is identity politics. It used to be that big political divides were defined by economic interests; now, the cultural dog wags the economic tail. Identity politics defines the core political divides. When many progressives talk about economics these days, they take the habits of mind they developed when talking about identity groups and apply them to economic groups.

It’s the same Manichaeism: oppressor versus oppressed, privileged versus underprivileged, hegemon versus victim. Conflict is inevitable. The apocalypse is near. Preserve the purity of the group. Shut down the other side. It’s sectarian politics to the nth degree.

In Venezuela we saw how a politician used demagogic sectarian rhetoric to establish an authoritarian regime and then destroy a people. I’m sure many of my left-wing friends believe that that sort of tribal us/them mentality won’t hijack and corrupt their own movement. But as someone who lived through the last 30 years of conservatism, I’m here to tell you, it can. Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore.

[greg775]

12 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/future-american-left.html?action=click&module=Associated&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&contentCollection=David Brooks

The Future of the American Left

 

The first would be to rewrite rules to redistribute wealth. In an anthology called “Reflections on the Future of the Left,” Baker imagines ways this might be done: impose a tax on financial transactions to weaken Wall Street’s power; change monetary policies to give full employment priority; shorten the workweek to tighten labor markets; and change corporate law to make it easier to cut executive pay.

The second task would be to ensure economic security for all. This would involve raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, providing universal basic income and having the federal government provide a paying job to all who want one.

I would disagree with this agenda on pragmatic policy grounds, but at least it would be humane. It’s a positive, universalist agenda that aims at social solidarity and national cohesion — we’re all in this together. It would be, as Sheri Berman writes in Dissent, enchanted with a radical idealism.

Nonetheless, I don’t think this is the leftism we will wind up with. Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right. It is based on a scarcity mentality, the idea that life is a zero-sum war between us and them. It emphasizes division and conflict, not solidarity and cohesion. It draws out the authoritarian tendencies in any movement. On the right, tribalism brings us the ethnic authoritarianism of Donald Trump. On the left, it seems likely to bring us the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez.

You can see authoritarianism entering the left through two avenues. The first is nationalism. Not long ago, most of the American left tended to think transnationally — partly because problems like climate change are global, partly because it’s hard to regulate a global economy nation by nation, partly because progressives used to be psychologically averse to nationalism.

But national sovereignty is not withering away. Left-wing hostility toward European Union-type multilateral organizations is at record highs. Now a lot of progressive economic thinking is nakedly nationalistic. Bernie Sanders in 2015 derided a more open immigration policy as a “Koch brothers proposal.” It’s the old xenophobia — us or them, screw or be screwed. On trade, the left-wing populists sound like Trump.

The second stream fueling economic authoritarianism is identity politics. It used to be that big political divides were defined by economic interests; now, the cultural dog wags the economic tail. Identity politics defines the core political divides. When many progressives talk about economics these days, they take the habits of mind they developed when talking about identity groups and apply them to economic groups.

It’s the same Manichaeism: oppressor versus oppressed, privileged versus underprivileged, hegemon versus victim. Conflict is inevitable. The apocalypse is near. Preserve the purity of the group. Shut down the other side. It’s sectarian politics to the nth degree.

In Venezuela we saw how a politician used demagogic sectarian rhetoric to establish an authoritarian regime and then destroy a people. I’m sure many of my left-wing friends believe that that sort of tribal us/them mentality won’t hijack and corrupt their own movement. But as someone who lived through the last 30 years of conservatism, I’m here to tell you, it can. Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore.

Nice post. I was of the impression Millenials wanted socialism.

[GoSox05]

That article is so bad.  Not surprising from David Brooks.

One thing David Brooks seems to talk about in almost every article is how the far right and the far left are the same.  As we see the far right continue to resort to violence and kill people.  Meanwhile the left is getting mad that the healthcare system we have is bad.  Exactly the same thing.

[StrangeSox]

David Brooks barely has insight into his own head let alone what "the left" wants

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

David Brooks barely has insight into his own head let alone what "the left" wants

His chief insight is usually "I want to go back to the days when I could pretend minorities weren't actually people and everyone listened to me." It's there.

[BigSqwert]

The "family values" party

 

 

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thwart-trump-progressives-democrats-show-willingness-bury-hatchet-224636441.html

In order to thwart Trump, progressive Democrats show willingness to bury hatchet with centrists/moderates/DLC

[StrangeSox]

 

More teacher union organizing action, this time in NC. Some of the biggest organized labor efforts in decades recently with these teachers' strikes in multiple states. Shame that the SC is going to destroy public unions with extremely specious legal reasoning in Janus in a few weeks.

[Reddy]

Got a job working for the Abby Finkenauer campaign in IA-01, taking on Rod "Most Vulnerable Incumbent" Blum. Start in a couple weeks. It'll be fun to spend a few months back home for the first time in a decade while working on one of the most flippable races in the country!

[GoSox05]

Four socialist-backed candidates win Pennsylvania legislative primaries

Nice night in Pennsylvania last night.

[Reddy]

Just now, GoSox05 said:

Four socialist-backed candidates win Pennsylvania legislative primaries

Nice night in Pennsylvania last night.

538 had an interesting article about how the far left had a great night over the more traditionally viable Dems, and the GOP had a good night for selecting the most electable candidates for the fall, and not going full-Trump. Interesting to see how that impacts the general elections. Basically, the GOP are running their best candidates, and the Dems are running their most ideological. We'll see what happens.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-democrats-just-have-their-first-tea-party-moment-of-the-2018-primaries/