wv wrote:

waterfield wrote:

Probably. One answer is to reduce the work day to four hrs without changing the pay or benefits. Nothing magical about eight. Logically you would double the workforce. In theory with more people working there is more money circulating and the corporations should be profiting as usual. That’s one man’s (me) solution.

—————-
My solution would be to democratize the work-force. Top to bottom.
In other words eviscerate the hierarchical corporate structure.

Another man’s solution

…are you planning on going to see the Rams at the Coliseum, W? When’s the last time you were there?

w
v

I’ve been invited to the KC preseason game which I think is next week. I can’t remember the last game I saw in the Coliseum. it all seems to blend together. Must have been in 79 since that was their last year there. I know I was living in Claremont at the time because we had a SB party following that season. I was at the last Anaheim game with my son and about 11 other people there. Crickets !

What the heck is a “democratized work-force”? You mean a boss couldn’t tell a worker: “you know Mr. Smith this is not a democracy here. You do have a choice in the matter. You can follow our rules or you can go to work some place else.”

“Using tougher trade policies with China and others to restore the nation’s manufacturing sector will bring home jobs, the theory goes.”

The article disputes the notion that whatever trade agreements we have with China is responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs here.

The real and more serious question is what to do about automation as we go forward into the future. IMO we will have to accept a larger and larger number of people not working. And that shouldn’t be a negative in the sense that we now look at being “unemployed”. It is simply a product of a future which begs us to feel good about it and learn to live with the free time most will have. If this means government compensation or something else that allows us to be financially capable-who knows. But I suspect that is in the future for all of us.

But are we really destined to lose “tons” of jobs due to technology ? Didn’t we just add 255,000 jobs this last month ? Maybe its the “type” of jobs that are being reduced-and if so isn’t that normal as the country moves into a more advanced technological arena. And even if in fact we were losing “tons” of jobs due to automation what could be done about that. Prohibit manufacturing companies from using advanced technology ? One answer in my opinion would be to take measures that will accept the fact that there will be scores of people simply not working. But I doubt we are there yet and the labor statistics point out.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/05/news/economy/us-economy-july-jobs-report/

Not sure how many here are in California but she ran against Brown for Governor. Very, very smart and a well respected Republican. She is a pretty big deal in Calif.

HI, it’s zn. I am going to take the unusual step of intervening through an edit. I posted the whole article in the next post. Here, I am just going to mention how to fix a common problem. Sometimes, the site translates a url into an image. To correct that, the url just needs to be on the same line with some kind of script you type in (I just write “link:”). I will do that to your first url here and you will see the difference.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/meg-whitman-hillary-clinton.html

Can’t seem to post the article. Anyway she’s supporting Hillary call Trump a dangerous demagogue.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by waterfield.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by waterfield.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by zn.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by zn.

zn wrote:

waterfield wrote:

This is the type of hyperbole that turns good people off. Good people who can actually make a change for the betterment of people who have little. No one -not even Trump or Hillary-is “against” the poor. No one believes these people represent a threat. There is no “WAR” against people who are poor. When people hear these “magical” words they automatically tune out. Of course there are policies and even laws that adversely impact those who have little. There always have been. And we need to elect those who will actively help those in need. But there is no “war” against the poor. Neither Hillaryh nor Trump have any ill will toward those less fortunate. “War against the poor” language does more harm than good because it takes a very serious issue and turns it into nonsense.

That seems less like a critique, w, then just a slam. First I don’t see it as hyperbole. It’s basically a summary slogan line for a position, and you don’t seem to address the position. So yes you’re right–no one takes it literally. In terms of the actual intent, when you don’t over-literalize the line itself, yes there are actual positions referred to, and they go to the heart of a great deal of actual politics. What Hillary and Trump have in varying degrees (with Trump far worse) is policies that disenfranchise people, harm people economically, and build an economic climate that heavily favors the more well off (unless you haven’t heard about the effect that economic inequality has on people). It’s reflected in health care, labor policies, and so on. All you addressed was the slogan which you unaccountably took as literal, and did not address the policies.

Yes american economic policies, unlike many countries (which are actually doing better than we are), do in fact strip power, rights, and opportunities from the disadvantaged and less well off. It seems to me to deny that is just to deny a significant reality.

And try to steer clear of antagonistic language like “childish nonsense” for positions you dont’ personally agree with. It goes against the spirit of the rules.

.

I didn’t intend to address the economic policies that disenfranchise the poor. I intended to address the slogan-period. Because I think it impacts on a person’t credibility on issues that I completely agree with that person. I’m not writing here to debate any policies that affect the poor because there is no debate as far as I’m concerned. It’s tragic and we need to do stuff to turn it around.

bnw wrote:

Don’t kid yourself. She is reviled by many people in all groups.

Of course she is. But far more by white males by a huge margin. So I question-why?

I’m sorry for offending those who believe as I do on Trump but have no children or grand children. I’m sure there are many such people. It’s just that I have encountered few. I have roughly 11 friends who I can easily call progressives and “leftists”. 3 of them are either married or not and none of the 3 have children. To a person they spend their entire time arguing how terrible Hillary is. The other 8 have extended families including lots of kids. They are deeply involved in preventing a Trump Presidency and less concerned about Hillary’s obvious faults. So in that light its anecdotal. That’s my little world and I perfectly understand that may or may not be representative. And to those individuals where that is not representative I do apologize.

Now -as to the subject of my post-when did we lose our civility when it comes to a genuine debate?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by waterfield.

I really don’t know much about him at all. The papers offer that he was picked to solidify her position as the most “reasonable” choice. Picking a VP has and will always be “political” in the sense of helping the presidential candidate. In that light I suspect he is a moderate-which of course will piss of the leftists. But as I age I’ve come to realize that for me labels mean little. Governor Earl Warren of California was a moderate to conservative republican who became chief justice of the Supreme Court and one of the most liberal activist jurists in the history of the court.

“decisions of the so-called Warren Court, which outlawed segregation in public schools and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public school-sponsored prayers, and requiring “one man–one vote” rules of apportionment of election districts. He made the Supreme Court a power center on a more even basis with Congress and the Presidency, especially through four landmark decisions: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966).” (from Wiki)

IMO there is far too much “group think” today whether its on the right or the left. Times and circumstance change and are in constant flux. One’s view on an issue today may well change in the future. Some really good people were sound believers in slavery at the time but would not be now. Some really good people in good faith believed in WMD and voted for military intervention in Iraq but today would not.

Some would use corruptive means to accomplish really good shit. Other’s might not and would never accomplish anything. Politics is a rough and muddy sport and if you want to get stuff done you can’t come out with a clean shirt. No matter who is in power be it a socialist, tea party, communist, right winger, blah blah-there will always be power to use and it will be used to get stuff done. Let’s not put our head in the sand. It’s like that famous line from Peter Lorre in Casablanca.

Sorry to use your narrow question for my soapbox. After watching the RNC I’m not in a good move. It all reminded me of some of those historical clips from the rise of Nazi Germany and Hitler’s call to action.