Wisconsin in the news

[_asbestosman]

Because it hurts me to see so much unnecessary suffering.

Me too. So we should do something about it--continue to spend our money to help.

But hey, let's do the American thing and take what we want by force. That's what we did to the Native Americans. That's what we did to Mexico. Maybe the wealthy are beginning to feel left out.

[_Eric]

Because it hurts me to see so much unnecessary suffering.

Me too. So we should do something about it--continue to spend our money to help.

That's not a solution.

But hey, let's do the American thing and take what we want by force. That's what we did to the Native Americans. That's what we did to Mexico. Maybe the wealthy are beginning to feel left out.

I don't understand the comparisons.

[_asbestosman]

Me too. So we should do something about it--continue to spend our money to help.

That's not a solution.

Why not? Because we don't have enough money ourselves?

Here's the thing I see. While indeed forcing the rich to fork over their cash would go a long way to address much current suffering in the world, I don't think it would address all of it. First off, I think that medicine is a never-ending black hole. There's always more medicine you can buy or try to help ease pain or maybe add weeks or months onto a terminal disease (which can be valuable, but it isn't free). Should we use medicine that exists regardless of the cost, or should we assess where we put these resources?

The other issue I have is the short term vs the long term. We may address short-term needs, but what about the long term? We need to reinvest money if we want it to grow and we need incentive to keep working harder. While I believe we can increase taxes from our current rate without much harm to the economy, we cannot do that forever. While we can pay more than we do without people losing the motivation to work hard, there will eventually come a point at which that is no longer true. I think that such a point will be reached well before we address all suffering even though we can do more than we are doing now.

But hey, let's do the American thing and take what we want by force. That's what we did to the Native Americans. That's what we did to Mexico. Maybe the wealthy are beginning to feel left out.

I don't understand the comparisons.

The comparisons are not deep or completely analogous. The comparison is simply one about using force to get our way. Not something I'm proud of and not something I want to do. That said, I am in favor of making the wealthy pay more so we can fund the current programs we have decided are important--as long as we ourselves are likewise willing to pay more. I am also in favor of removing tax breaks from the wealthy that we do not enjoy and which provide no benefit to Americans in general.

[_Eric]

Why not? Because we don't have enough money ourselves?

That's one reason. There are more.

Here's the thing I see. While indeed forcing the rich to fork over their cash would go a long way to address much current suffering in the world, I don't think it would address all of it.

It's not just about forking over their cash, but eliminating the system that depends on disparity between social classes.

First off, I think that medicine is a never-ending black hole. There's always more medicine you can buy or try to help ease pain or maybe add weeks or months onto a terminal disease (which can be valuable, but it isn't free).

Another good argument for eliminating the current system of social classes.

Should we use medicine that exists regardless of the cost, or should we assess where we put these resources?

I don't think there is an easy answer to this that can be applied to every situation.

The other issue I have is the short term vs the long term. We may address short-term needs, but what about the long term? We need to reinvest money if we want it to grow and we need incentive to keep working harder.

Whatever we do, worshiping greed and allowing the top 1% of the population to control all of the wealth won't address our short-term or long-term needs.

While I believe we can increase taxes from our current rate without much harm to the economy, we cannot do that forever.

Agreed.

While we can pay more than we do without people losing the motivation to work hard, there will eventually come a point at which that is no longer true.

I don't see this as a very big problem. I don't think it's important to make sure everyone is working and performing to my expectations. There are plenty of occupations that don't contribute to society or alleviate suffering. Landlords - to use a Marxist example - don't work hard or contribute to society, neither do company shareholders, hedge fund managers, board members, etc.

So no, I don't think motivation is really an issue. I think this argument is used to divide the working class.

The comparisons are not deep or completely analogous. The comparison is simply one about using force to get our way.

Well, in an ideal situation, we wouldn't have to use force. But are you saying that it is never okay to use force? What would justify using force?

That said, I am in favor of making the wealthy pay more so we can fund the current programs we have decided are important--as long as we ourselves are likewise willing to pay more.

I don't see why the poor would also be required to pay more, other than for some sort of lesson or principle. Is that what you mean? Out of principle?

[_asbestosman]

I don't see why the poor would also be required to pay more, other than for some sort of lesson or principle. Is that what you mean? Out of principle?

Out of principle, and I'm not talking about the poor. I'm talking about me and most people in the middle class. I think before I'm willing to say something is important and worth spending resources on, I should be willing to sacrifice or labor to make it happen rather than voting that someone else shoulder the burden just because he is more capable.

I may touch on the other points later. I gotta run.

[_Eric]

Out of principle, and I'm not talking about the poor. I'm talking about me and most people in the middle class.

When I say "the poor" I am also talking about the middle class. The proletariat.

I may touch on the other points later. I gotta run.

Okay.

[_asbestosman]

It's not just about forking over their cash, but eliminating the system that depends on disparity between social classes.

I don't see a way around this. While I don't believe in pure, unchecked capitalistic greed, I don't think communism or even a simple elimination of classes is feasible. I tend to side with Adam Smith in that regard. However, I also believe that unchecked capitalism has terrible hiccups like monopolies, various barriers to entry, and even social problems if the poor are not provided sufficient resources to care for themselves.

First off, I think that medicine is a never-ending black hole. There's always more medicine you can buy or try to help ease pain or maybe add weeks or months onto a terminal disease (which can be valuable, but it isn't free).

Another good argument for eliminating the current system of social classes.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this that can be applied to every situation.

I believe everyone should have access to some healthcare needs regardless of ability to pay, but I do not believe it's possible for us to address all medical desires even if we tax the wealthy at 100% after their first few hundred thousand.

Whatever we do, worshiping greed and allowing the top 1% of the population to control all of the wealth won't address our short-term or long-term needs.

Belief in the invisible hand isn't a worship of greed. It's a recognition of the limitations we humans have and how we can work within that system for a better outcome than one in which we try to control everything through taxes in the name of fairness.

I don't see this as a very big problem. I don't think it's important to make sure everyone is working and performing to my expectations.

Fair enough I suppose--as long as we don't run into the shirker problem. If you shirk, I don't think you should enjoy as much as the next guy who works his tail off on the thing which society values to pay him for it.

I also believe, unfair though it is, that a person should be able to let his children inherit his wealth. I'm not against estate a.k.a. "death" taxes though if meted out fairly.

There are plenty of occupations that don't contribute to society or alleviate suffering. Landlords - to use a Marxist example - don't work hard or contribute to society, neither do company shareholders, hedge fund managers, board members, etc.

I disagree about those for various reasons, but agree that there are some people who get money without really earning it or contributing to society. Since I am fine with freeloaders who inherit money, I suppose that for consistency I can't worry too much about the motivation to work hard except when not enough people are motivated to work to meet the needs of the whole. The existence of shirkers in and of itself does not bother me. I just know that I myself do enjoy the motivation of being able to have a little more money the harder I work. If that is no longer true, it would discourage me.

Let's put it this way, do you think it's wrong for lottery winners to keep their winnings, or should they be taxed their winnings until all they have is, say, the price of their ticket plus $100? If they can keep their undeserved winnings, why not the wealthy?

Well, in an ideal situation, we wouldn't have to use force. But are you saying that it is never okay to use force? What would justify using force?

Force is okay in some situations. I believe it fair to force people to pay taxes,because I too pay those taxes and those taxes in general benefit all of us. This is why I mentioned compromise. I'm willing to be forced and use force so long as we voters decide to do it AND it doesn't place a burden on someone else which I myself am not willing to shoulder.

How about this. If you think that the wealthy don't need all that extra dough for their fancy mansions, yachts, etc., then what about us? Do you really need an iPhone? If you want them to give up their toys, why not give up yours too?

I think money and classes are a natural part of society. While it's not one that I think is commendable, I think it's in our blood. We use money to make ourselves more attractive to people we like. We do it by buying status symbols such as cars, popular gadgets like iPhones, nice clothing, and so on. In fact I think many of those things are overpriced, especially certain cars, certain Apple products, and certain brands of clothing. However, I recognize that it has status value to other people which makes it worth the price to them. I don't admire that, but I accept it.

In a world where money can no longer be used as a status symbol, I'd still be happy enough. In that world, we'd have to compete on things like knowledge, compassion, physical fitness and so on. I'm okay with that. I just wonder if someone like you who I think is more into the trendy than me would likewise be okay with a world in which everyone can afford the same products and thus everything is equally lame.

ETA: I'm also curious as to how liberals can reconcile forcing their morals on others (about disparity between rich and poor) with their protests about legislating morality in things like gay marriage.

[_Eric]

I don't see a way around this. While I don't believe in pure, unchecked capitalistic greed, I don't think communism or even a simple elimination of classes is feasible.

I think it's not only feasible, but inevitable.

Belief in the invisible hand isn't a worship of greed. It's a recognition of the limitations we humans have and how we can work within that system for a better outcome than one in which we try to control everything through taxes in the name of fairness.

There is no real concept of fairness in a capitalist system. Fairness is the right the elite have to exploit the people without interference.

Fair enough I suppose--as long as we don't run into the shirker problem. If you shirk, I don't think you should enjoy as much as the next guy who works his tail off on the thing which society values to pay him for it.

I agree.

I also believe, unfair though it is, that a person should be able to let his children inherit his wealth. I'm not against estate a.k.a. "death" taxes though if meted out fairly.

I strongly disagree, but I think there is definitely room for compromise. Your children inheriting your wealth is an entirely different animal than the Hilton sisters inheriting their families wealth.

There are plenty of occupations that don't contribute to society or alleviate suffering. Landlords - to use a Marxist example - don't work hard or contribute to society, neither do company shareholders, hedge fund managers, board members, etc.

Let's put it this way, do you think it's wrong for lottery winners to keep their winnings, or should they be taxed their winnings until all they have is, say, the price of their ticket plus $100? If they can keep their undeserved winnings, why not the wealthy?

I think the lottery is wrong for all the reasons set forth in 1984.

How about this. If you think that the wealthy don't need all that extra dough for their fancy mansions, yachts, etc., then what about us? Do you really need an iPhone? If you want them to give up their toys, why not give up yours too?

This is a common misconception in this kind of discussion. Eliminating a portion of the obscene wealth accumulated by the top 1% doesn't mean the death of all innovation, private property, art, culture, etc. It has nothing to do with the meager wealth of the middle class. It has to do with billionaire bankers and the end of the means in which they use capital to exploit labor.

[Analytics]

This is a common misconception in this kind of discussion. Eliminating a portion of the obscene wealth accumulated by the top 1% doesn't mean the death of all innovation, private property, art, culture, etc. It has nothing to do with the meager wealth of the middle class. It has to do with billionaire bankers and the end of the means in which they use capital to exploit labor.

That's not quite what I had in mind at that point though. I'm saying that even if we tax the obscene wealth of the top 1%, we should be willing to make similar sacrifices. The fact is, I feel like I'm living a pretty good life despite the obscene wealth of billionaire bankers. I don't feel right forcing my morals on them--not without being willing to make similar sacrifices myself.

Oh, and I don't have an iPhone. I'm more of an Android person myself.

[_EAllusion]

All the public employees in Wisconsin who will not return to their lavishly remunerated taxpayer funded jobs, or in particular, who strike, should be summarily and unceremoniously fired, just as any private sector employee who walked of his job would be.

Jon Stewart did a humorous bit on how moderately compensated middle-class professions like your average high school teacher are getting described as lavish in the right-wing media while literally a few months ago genuinely wealthy incomes were being described by the same folks as modestly getting by when attempting to defend retaining the Bush-era tax cuts for the top bracket. Since you tend to just repeat right-wing sources, regardless of the ideological ebb and flow of what they're actually saying, you actually are a walking example of that having happened. Public sector positions are all over the place, and are reasonably well-compensated when compared against private sector analogs if you take into account job security, but let's not go crazy with our descriptions here.

Anywho, the state absolutely can try to fire any worker who strikes. That's part of the nature of labor negotiation. Striking workers in the private sector aren't always fired, but whatever. The problem with that, of course, they can't do that if enough people strike without scorching the earth and setting the state back many years. Walker seems intent on going through with his agenda regardless of political repercussions or pesky things like the state constitution and the rule of law in his more autocratic moves, so I don't think that fact would be a roadblock. Still, at some point you can't do much when the state has ground to a halt. It's hard to find nearly 200,000 people in professional fields, in many cases with years of specific expertise built up, without losing a ton. Imagine trying to replace all the UW professors for a moment. World renown experts in stem-cell research, primatology, etc etc. aren't falling from trees like apples. More likely they'd have to come to a begrudging settlement that accepts at least most workers back and settles into periodic local strikes until the Democrats retake power and reverse the bill. You can't turn Wisconsin into Mississippi with cold winters in the blink of an eye.