Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_EAllusion]

I am generally in favor of market-based equilibria, and although I understand the concept of determining a living wage, I would rather define it as a policy of determining a living allowance, separate from the labor market, in order to let the markets work as efficiently as possible. In that sense, Doc's first step of determining a "living wage" is not necessarily the first step in creating policy to allow a labor market to operate efficiently.

That's an extremely generous reading of Doc, who specifically talked about figuring out what carpenters in Southern California specifically should earn as a fair wage for their labor, why they don't, and how to create policy to rectify the difference. This doesn't sound like living / min wage policy or supplementary / basic income at all. For that you'd be looking at minimums of standard of living and associated costs, not what carpenters specifically should be making.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd like to see what you think would achieve your optimal result. I assume that would require at least highlighting what you view to be the optimal result, the mechanisms for achieving it, and how various participants in the system would affect the desired outcome.

Sure. You'll note EA tries to move my position of setting a wage by the government. I, of course, didn't say such a thing, but that's his thing with re-framing a narrative that suits his whatever-the-[deleted] he thinks he is in the moment.

ANYWAY.

I'll try to keep my approach concise so it's easy to pick apart.

1) No government mandated set wages since it's pointless, anyway. The minimum wage is a joke and the market just adjusts accordingly. This is why I think a Universal Basic Income would be disastrous on a much larger scale. Basically it would just accelerate inflation possibly leading to stagflation.

1,a) The problem with my above position it'd be abused by employers who have a semi-captive employment base and it'd be illegal to prosecute them for basically enslaving those people.

1,a,i) The above would be great for those who want to pay a dollar for their Happy Meals. “F” the poor minorities who would most likely make up the vast majority of these kinds of situations. Cheap lettuce for everyone!

1,a,i,x) We end up subsidizing these folks through debt financing various programs at the local, state, and federal level while businesses pocket the profits. One way or another we're paying for that lettuce.

2) We need to document every worker that crosses that border. I don't really care how it's down, whether it's with a wall (not a fan at all) or through a path-to-citizenship program. I want every single person that crosses the border to be identified through biometrics, given an id, a tax number, and then tracked so we can ensure:

2,a) They pay taxes on the wages they earn here. It is what it is.

2,b) We can work with businesses who have quota needs and allow them to fulfill these quotas. Businesses either pay into an Obamacare type of insurance program so workers have medical and dental or they offer competitive programs similar to other employers who have full-time employees.

2,b,i) We can insure and ensure these workers are protected by the law as they either stay here to work as a Mexican/Honduran/Latvian citizens or as an eventual naturalized citizen.

2,c) Because I'm a raging nationalist or fascist or whatever I want to control our border and prevent drugs, criminals, and deny whatever else that presents a threat to our nation. I think if we work with immigrants, give them an id, allow them to come and go as documented folks they'll in turn work with us to identify criminals so we can get to them before they do the body politic harm.

3) If you come here and don't work within our path-to-citizenship program or our free-range worker program you gotta go. Immediate family members, of course, can stay because it's cruel to divide up families.

That's pretty much it off the top of my head because typing any more will just get tedious and nuanced.

What we shouldn't do is just allow millions of people to flood into the country. I don't see how it's good for anyone on either side other than those who enjoy a tasty and cheap Happy Meal. If a business thinks it can get cheaper hammer swingers from Mexico, cool, they work with immigration and fill a quota with guys who are id'd, have a tax number, and are traceable. Markk will have to adapt, I guess.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I'd like to see what you think would achieve your optimal result. I assume that would require at least highlighting what you view to be the optimal result, the mechanisms for achieving it, and how various participants in the system would affect the desired outcome.

Sure. You'll note EAllusion tries to move my position of setting a wage by the government. I, of course, didn't say such a thing, but that's his thing with re-framing a narrative that suits his ____ he thinks he is in the moment.

To be fair, I also read your comment as requiring a government-like group to give the idea that a handful of people working out the best wage for a SoCal carpenter is meaningful to even consider.

I'll try to keep my approach concise so it's easy to pick apart.

1) No government mandated set wages since it's pointless, anyway. The minimum wage is a joke and the market just adjusts accordingly. This is why I think a Universal Basic Income would be disastrous on a much larger scale. Basically it would just accelerate inflation possibly leading to stagflation.

1,a) The problem with my above position it'd be abused by employers who have a semi-captive employment base and it'd be illegal to prosecute them for basically enslaving those people.

1,a,i) The above would be great for those who want to pay a dollar for their Happy Meals. ____ the poor minorities who would most likely make up the vast majority of these kinds of situations. Cheap lettuce for everyone!

1,a,i,x) We end up subsidizing these folks through debt financing various programs at the local, state, and federal level while businesses pocket the profits. One way or another we're paying for that lettuce.

If I understand correctly, your offering up a laissez-faire approach but with a jaundiced, cynical eye?

2) We need to document every worker that crosses that border. I don't really care how it's down, whether it's with a wall (not a fan at all) or through a path-to-citizenship program. I want every single person that crosses the border to be identified through biometrics, given an id, a tax number, and then tracked so we can ensure:

2,a) They pay taxes on the wages they earn here. It is what it is.

2,b) We can work with businesses who have quota needs and allow them to fulfill these quotas. Businesses either pay into an Obamacare type of insurance program so workers have medical and dental or they offer competitive programs similar to other employers who have full-time employees.

2,b,i) We can insure and ensure these workers are protected by the law as they either stay here to work as a Mexican/Honduran/Latvian citizens or as an eventual naturalized citizen.

2,c) Because I'm a raging nationalist or fascist or whatever I want to control our border and prevent drugs, criminals, and deny whatever else that presents a threat to our nation. I think if we work with immigrants, give them an id, allow them to come and go as documented folks they'll in turn work with us to identify criminals so we can get to them before they do the body politic harm.

3) If you come here and don't work within our path-to-citizenship program or our free-range worker program you gotta go. Immediate family members, of course, can stay because it's cruel to divide up families.

That's pretty much it off the top of my head because typing any more will just get tedious and nuanced.

What we shouldn't do is just allow millions of people to flood into the country. I don't see how it's good for anyone on either side other than those who enjoy a tasty and cheap Happy Meal. If a business thinks it can get cheaper hammer swingers from Mexico, cool, they work with immigration and fill a quota with guys who are id'd, have a tax number, and are traceable. Markk will have to adapt, I guess.

- Doc

Ok, so pro free markets but tight controls on immigration with industry leaders establishing labor quotas to define how many (but not who?) with harsh, rigorous policing of illegal immigration is what you believe will work out best for society?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ok, so pro free markets but tight controls on immigration with industry leaders establishing labor quotas to define how many (but not who?) with harsh, rigorous policing of illegal immigration is what you believe will work out best for society?

I mean, I can re-type what I thought was a fairly clean, bulletized list for you? I don't know how to pair down a complex situation to a simpler format.

I guess I'll give it a try...

Libertarianism is retarded.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Was it a fair summary of your position?

ETA: I'm more concerned about confirming the summary of your bullet point 1's rather than the 2 and 3 items. The later were fairly clear. Bullet point one and it's sub-bullets aren't as clear as it seems it's coming from a place of cynicism.

[_Markk]

Are you kidding, because people who have resumes and references want more money.

Then why not pay them more money?

Because if we did, we would not be competitive in bidding, and we would go out of business. This is becasue it has come to the point, where if you want to compete in the private sector, you have to pay the lower wages that immigrants have flooded the market with, or not be competitive...it is that simple.

Unions used to be able to compete with the private sector, now they cannot...and the only thing that is keeping them in competition, is the Davis Bacon act. In the late 70's early 80's I was actually a Union Carpenter on residential tract homes ..that is unheard of today unless goverment monies are involved.

[_Markk]

I've been stringing Markk along on this point, but what I'm getting at is that the terrible immigrant labor his business is hiring is actually getting the job done to the satisfaction of people his business is selling to. He is making the argument for you that immigrant labor is driving down costs in his field, which is no doubt helpful to consumers of his products. No doubt he has headaches with his labor pool, but they are meeting demand which is why he continues to participate in the hiring of them.

LOL...how are you stringing me along? Please explain how...what I have seen is that you are naïve of what is going on in the world, and think you can understand it with pick and choosing google hits.

You have yet to show me how you make more money because of illegal immigration? You have tried to shift the discussion to a buying power argument of sorts, which is equally wrong in that buying power is way down since the immigration flood also.

Anyway, explain how you are stringing me along and point me to those posts.

I have to ask...do you live in your parents basement? I honestly get the feeling that you have not experienced the world much.

[_Analytics]

I think what Analytics meant, and let's remember he claims to be a Marxist, is that the right wing is supposed to be free market, yet in the case of immigration and, well about everything these days, the right wing demands protection from competition more than anyone.

It's the right wing who maximizes profits by mobility of labor inputs and so on, and so if Spanish dominates LA, then let it do so and let English speakers move, as we we would hate to force our hand on the sacred optimizations the market has in store. The point is that mobility of labor shouldn't be illegal.

Of course as his Indian professor said -- and assuming a market really is the right model-- maximizing profits for a two country economy in total is just that, and not necessarily what's best for either country.

I believe Analytcs has mentioned the parallel problem of automation.

Of course, I understand Mark, no capitalist has ever been a free market advocate when it comes to his own competition.

Basically, but let me clarify one thing with regards to what I bolded. According to classic economics, free trade is not only beneficial in total, it is beneficial to both countries.

For example, say that Americans are really good at construction, but are freaking amazing at computer programming. In this same hypothetical universe, say that Mexicans are average at construction, but suck badly at computer programming.

In such an economy where the Americans are better at everything than Mexicans, it is still in the best-interst of both countries to have free trade where the Americans specialize in computer programming and the Mexicans specialize in construction. Even though Americans are better at everything than Mexicans, the Mexicans have a comparitive advantage in construction (Google "comparitive advantage" for examples of why this is allegedly so). Thus, it would be in both countries' best interest for Mexicans to specialize in construction and Americansto specialize in programming.

However, that result really being in the best interest of both countries is based upon a host of free-market assumptions that the Marxist in me laughs at. People and institutions aren't paid according to what they actually produce--they are paid according to what they can negotiate.

[_Hawkeye]

What we shouldn't do is just allow millions of people to flood into the country.

But if we implemented a system you describe above that is what we will be doing, right? You don't think millions of Mexicans who've yet to build up the courage to cross the border illegally would jump at an opportunity to come here legally if it were as simple as getting documented and being put on a path to citizenship?

I don't see how it's good for anyone on either side other than those who enjoy a tasty and cheap Happy Meal.

They do it because it does benefit them and their families, and their presence benefits the American people well beyond saving a few bucks on fast food. As far as paying taxes is concerned, I agree the current system is messed up. But they do pay taxes.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Was it a fair summary of your position?

ETA: I'm more concerned about confirming the summary of your bullet point 1's rather than the 2 and 3 items. The later were fairly clear. Bullet point one and it's sub-bullets aren't as clear as it seems it's coming from a place of cynicism.

Well, my first bullet was what I think our market policy should be, but admitting at the same time we're going to have people and corporations abuse it by paying people, in some cases, an absurdly low wage. There are attempts to correct this kind of immorality with a minimum wage, but I tend to think in most cases it's unwise to mandate a wage for the aforementioned reasons.

I suppose we could just close tax loopholes and take more of the 1-5%'ers money to finance the cost of lettuce rather than borrowing money to subsidize industries that take advantage of poor minorities. But then again I'm the board racist so I should probably reconsider a position that respects migrant workers, their health, and their dignity.

- Doc