Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[southsider2k5]

That's actually not hypocritical or ironic at all, it's the entire point of uniting the "99%" against our capitalist overlords.

 

It is 100% hypocritical. "Fair share" by its very definition doesn't apply to 1% of the economy.

[StrangeSox]

It is 100% hypocritical. "Fair share" by its very definition doesn't apply to 1% of the economy.

Encouraging other working-class individuals to fight against investment-class individuals for better wages, working conditions, benefits, etc. instead of fighting each other isn't hypocritical. I refuse to believe you honestly don't get their point.

[southsider2k5]

Encouraging other working-class individuals to fight against investment-class individuals for better wages, working conditions, benefits, etc. instead of fighting each other isn't hypocritical. I refuse to believe you honestly don't get their point.

 

I get the point, and think it is 100% hypocritical, because all you are talking about is a randomly chosen line in the sand that determines who deserves what they have and who doesn't. Vague terms like "investment class" and "working class" are just glittering generalities that mean nothing. Much of that union group are people who don't want to lose their own investments.

[StrangeSox]

Please explain exactly what is hypocritical about encouraging other workers to fight for their own rights instead of fighting to drag all workers down for the benefit of capital.

[southsider2k5]

Please explain exactly what is hypocritical about encouraging other workers to fight for their own rights instead of fighting to drag all workers down for the benefit of capital.

 

I did. It is hypocritical to demand a fair share from some, but resist it when it is your turn for a fair share payment.

[StrangeSox]

I did. It is hypocritical to demand a fair share from some, but resist it when it is your turn for a fair share payment.

 

Thank you for clarifying. You really do not understand their argument.

 

Fighting to drag down other working-class people is not a productive way of closing income and inequality gaps between the very, very top and everyone else. It's a great way of ensuring that they will persist. It's a great way of keeping economic mobility in the US low. Their argument is against the multi-millionaires who have seen their incomes rise and rise and rise. If you see that as a problem (I know you do not, but you cannot superimpose your ideology on to theirs and then call them hypocrites for it), then there is nothing hypocritical in convincing people in similar or worse situations that the real enemy is the group at the very top who has the power, not the group ever-so-slightly ahead of them.

[southsider2k5]

Thank you for clarifying. You really do not understand their argument.

 

Fighting to drag down other working-class people is not a productive way of closing income and inequality gaps between the very, very top and everyone else. It's a great way of ensuring that they will persist. It's a great way of keeping economic mobility in the US low. Their argument is against the multi-millionaires who have seen their incomes rise and rise and rise. If you see that as a problem (I know you do not, but you cannot superimpose your ideology on to theirs and then call them hypocrites for it), then there is nothing hypocritical in convincing people in similar or worse situations that the real enemy is the group at the very top who has the power, not the group ever-so-slightly ahead of them.

 

I understand the argument. Its called class warfare. It is hypocritical for people to constantly point up the income ladder and say that they are the ones who have to pay, while they themselves don't. If you truly want to complain about someone else paying a fair share, then you yourself should have want to sacrifice for people below yourself. If not, you are a hypocrite.

 

The high school drop out struggling to hold a minimum wage job looks at the guy working on the pickle line at USX bringing home 100K a year with full benefits as rich (such as pension and health care). Using key left wing catch phrases doesn't change the fact that they are in the top wage earners, and investors in the US. Them telling the 90-95% of people below them not to target them is hypocritical if they themselves are going to target the people above themselves. Doing exactly what you tell people not to do is the very definition of hypocrisy. Trying to narrow the scope down to make it fit ideology is just a way of trying to hide.

[StrangeSox]

I understand the argument. Its called class warfare. It is hypocritical for people to constantly point up the income ladder and say that they are the ones who have to pay, while they themselves don't. If you truly want to complain about someone else paying a fair share, then you yourself should have want to sacrifice for people below yourself. If not, you are a hypocrite.

 

The high school drop out struggling to hold a minimum wage job looks at the guy working on the pickle line at USX bringing home 100K a year with full benefits as rich (such as pension and health care). Using key left wing catch phrases doesn't change the fact that they are in the top wage earners, and investors in the US. Them telling the 90-95% of people below them not to target them is hypocritical if they themselves are going to target the people above themselves. Doing exactly what you tell people not to do is the very definition of hypocrisy. Trying to narrow the scope down to make it fit ideology is just a way of trying to hide.

 

The central flaw in your argument here, and it goes right to the core, is the idea that somehow unions giving up their gains in the labor market will make things better for anyone but shareholders and owners.

 

Without that bizarre assumption, your entire argument collapses. Unions ceding wages and working conditions and benefits will not improve the lives of anyone below them. Correctly pointing this out does not make them hypocrites.

 

edit: It's true that class-warfare is entirely a one-way street conducting by the lazy, drug-addled moocher underclass who doesn't have any skin in the game and is just jealous of all those hard-working, boot-strapping, moral job creators!

Edited January 12, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

The central flaw in your argument here, and it goes right to the core, is the idea that somehow unions giving up their gains in the labor market will make things better for anyone but shareholders and owners.

 

Without that bizarre assumption, your entire argument collapses. Unions ceding wages and working conditions and benefits will not improve the lives of anyone below them. Correctly pointing this out does not make them hypocrites.

 

edit: It's true that class-warfare is entirely a one-way street conducting by the lazy, drug-addled moocher underclass who doesn't have any skin in the game and is just jealous of all those hard-working, boot-strapping, moral people!

well said.

[southsider2k5]

The central flaw in your argument here, and it goes right to the core, is the idea that somehow unions giving up their gains in the labor market will make things better for anyone but shareholders and owners.

 

Without that bizarre assumption, your entire argument collapses. Unions ceding wages and working conditions and benefits will not improve the lives of anyone below them. Correctly pointing this out does not make them hypocrites.

 

edit: It's true that class-warfare is entirely a one-way street conducting by the lazy, drug-addled moocher underclass who doesn't have any skin in the game and is just jealous of all those hard-working, boot-strapping, moral people!

 

Well we can't have class warfare without your assumptions, so I am not surprised that is the house of sand yours is built on. Of course only once you get to the magic point do you become greedy and resentful of others. Until then you only want just your fair share, and nothing more.

 

The idea that that Robin Hood economics only works for the top 1% is just blind to reality.

[StrangeSox]

Well we can't have class warfare without your assumptions, so I am not surprised that is the house of sand yours is built on. Of course only once you get to the magic point do you become greedy and resentful of others. Until then you only want just your fair share, and nothing more.

 

The idea that that Robin Hood economics only works for the top 1% is just blind to reality.

 

First, lol at the bolded. It's only class warfare when the wealthy are targeted!

 

Noticeably missing from this post and any others is an argument for your assumption that unions ceding gains to owners/shareholders/management will actually result in increased income and wealth equality. The only way your objection makes sense is if we remove the top 1% from the scope of income and wealth distribution such that when more money is funneled to them, it really does make everyone below more equal. Can you actually explain how unions making less means those with lower wages and benefits than unions making more and having better benefits? Can you show how this would decrease inequality and increase mobility? Can you point to any historical evidence of this? Because there's quite a bit pointing in the exact opposite direction.

 

[Milkman delivers]

And this is why I avoided the Filibuster for so long.

[NorthSideSox72]

And this is why I avoided the Filibuster for so long.

The tendency to have arguments go to extremes and hyperbole drives me batty. And yet, I keep coming back for more punishment. I think I need help.

 

[StrangeSox]

The tendency to have arguments go to extremes and hyperbole drives me batty. And yet, I keep coming back for more punishment. I think I need help.

 

Aside from me intentionally using class warfare rhetoric of the right to illustrate how silly it is to say it's a one-way street, what's so hyperbolic or extreme about my line of questioning to ss2k5?

 

Do you see it as hypocritical for unions to advocate that other workers with less rights and protections than the unions should fight for better rights and protections themselves, and not fight against unions in a last-place-aversion manner?

[Milkman delivers]

The tendency to have arguments go to extremes and hyperbole drives me batty. And yet, I keep coming back for more punishment. I think I need help.

 

That, plus the fact that you know neither side is EVER going to say, "You know? You're right." You're lucky to see one side even admit the other has a point.

[StrangeSox]

Here's a great illustration of why ss2k5's argument that the unions are being hypocritical is so wrong:

 

[southsider2k5]

Here's a great illustration of why ss2k5's argument that the unions are being hypocritical is so wrong:

 

 

Actually you demonstrated my point perfectly. The next two quintiles saw plenty of growth as well. Why are they immune from "fair shares"?

[NorthSideSox72]

That, plus the fact that you know neither side is EVER going to say, "You know? You're right." You're lucky to see one side even admit the other has a point.

I'd recommend you be choosy as to whose posts you read. I can't really do that as an Admin, though I admit I do tend to scan some more than read them.

 

[StrangeSox]

Actually you demonstrated my point perfectly. The next two quintiles saw plenty of growth as well. Why are they immune from "fair shares"?

 

you really think this helps make your point?

 

The gaps in growth between the bottom 99% are pretty tiny. The gap between "everyone else" or even the "top 9% below the top 1%" is huge. The goal is more equality across the spectrum, not the 4th-lowest quintile sacrificing so that the 5th lowest quintile is now equal but both are still in really bad shape. I know you don't agree with that goal. That doesn't make those who espouse that goal hypocrites.

 

You still need to demonstrate how reduced union benefits and wages will result in increased wage gains for those below them. Explain how unions taking wage cuts mean increased wages for those below and not increased profits for those above.

[southsider2k5]

you really think this helps make your point?

 

The gaps in growth between the bottom 99% are pretty tiny. The gap between "everyone else" or even the "top 9% below the top 1%" is huge. The goal is more equality across the spectrum, not the 4th-lowest quintile sacrificing so that the 5th lowest quintile is now equal but both are still in really bad shape. I know you don't agree with that goal. That doesn't make those who espouse that goal hypocrites.

 

You still need to demonstrate how reduced union benefits and wages will result in increased wage gains for those below them. Explain how unions taking wage cuts mean increased wages for those below and not increased profits for those above.

 

It absolutely proves my point. Wealth hasn't just been created at the 1% level. If people really believe in sacrifices for societal good, they don't get to sit them out because they are just well off, or even wealthy, and not ultra-wealthy.

 

Besides you are leaving out the parts that show what the quintiles pay, which is the whole point of the graph being posted.

[StrangeSox]

It absolutely proves my point. Wealth hasn't just been created at the 1% level. If people really believe in sacrifices for societal good, they don't get to sit them out because they are just well off, or even wealthy, and not ultra-wealthy.

 

You're right, it hasn't been created "just" at the 1% level, just overwhelmingly so.

 

You still haven't given an explanation at how unions earning less results in those below earning more. You haven't explained how unions earning less results in lower income and wealth inequality across the board, not simply between union and non-union labor, and how it wouldn't just result in bigger gains for that top 1%.

 

You haven't even attempted to argue your point until you explain that.

 

Besides you are leaving out the parts that show what the quintiles pay, which is the whole point of the graph being posted.

 

No, the point of that graph is to show the massive disparity in economic gains across income groups.

[southsider2k5]

You're right, it hasn't been created "just" at the 1% level, just overwhelmingly so.

 

You still haven't given an explanation at how unions earning less results in those below earning more. You haven't explained how unions earning less results in lower income and wealth inequality across the board, not simply between union and non-union labor, and how it wouldn't just result in bigger gains for that top 1%.

 

You haven't even attempted to argue your point until you explain that.

 

 

 

No, the point of that graph is to show the massive disparity in economic gains across income groups.

 

If Robin Hood economics works at the top of the food chain, why does it quit working at the 1.01 percentile?

[StrangeSox]

If Robin Hood economics works at the top of the food chain, why does it quit working at the 1.01 percentile?

 

Yes, this is very perplexing. Who profits from reduced labor costs? Such a mystery.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, this is very perplexing. Who profits from reduced labor costs? Such a mystery.

 

Who would profit from turning one $100,000 union job into two $50,000 union jobs?

[Balta1701]

Who would profit from turning one $100,000 union job into two $50,000 union jobs?

The business owner, who now sees a substantial increase in productivity and decrease in labor costs.