dagblog - Comments for "Your Neighbor's Paycheck Is Your Paycheck"

Canada?

acanuck — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:54:48 +0000

Canada?

My challenge was to the

Verified Atheist — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:04:03 +0000

In reply to Fair enough, that my original

My challenge was to the premise that Republicans want people to lose what they have, but Dems don't. If the second part of that premise doesn't hold, the whole thing fails. I don't think Part I is true overall, though it can be debated and is true in some petty and mean-spirited circumstances. The second part is obviously false.

For most Dems (maybe not all, but most), it's not that they want the rich to have less, but that they want the poor to have more. There are lots of ways to achieve this, with some methods more fruitful than others. (Trickle-down economics has shown to be anti-fruitful, i.e., the poor actually got poorer under that experiment.) Raising minimum wages is one way to do that, and yes, that means that the über-rich might lose a little of what they have. An alternate approach is the earned-income tax credit, which also costs the rich; however, in neither case is the goal to take from the rich. (There are also less fruitful means of helping the poor that some well-meaning liberals advocate.)

The greatest resentment here is toward teachers unions, because every raise, every cost-of-living increase, every health care cost increase, every experience step raise means your kids' busing gets axed, extracurricular fees go up or a property tax increase goes on the ballot amid a foreclosure crisis.

This is a valid argument, and I'm sure it goes a long way towards explaining the attitudes of many working class people who dislike public unions. In some cases, I think these attitudes have merit, but in other cases they can be short sighted. I've never seen a situation where teacher salaries were too high, but I do think that, at least where I used to be a public high school teacher, firing poorly-performing teachers is too difficult. Of course, I've also never lived in a state that wasn't right-to-work. (What's the proper name for states that aren't right-to-work?)

Fair enough, that my original

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 03:52:00 +0000

In reply to Okay, I'll try again.You did

Fair enough, that my original point was defending Republicans vs. Democrats. But note that I started by noting your overall point and saying you underplay a few factors. Not that the whole thing was wrong, that you underplay a few factors. Your original post was strongly anti-republican and I offered some contrarian points to offsetand temper it.

Yes, my position became more even over time. I became more focused on having folks on the left understand that they do the exact thing you accuse Republicans of. My challenge was to the premise that Republicans want people to lose what they have, but Dems don't. If the second part of that premise doesn't hold, the whole thing fails. I don't think Part I is true overall, though it can be debated and is true in some petty and mean-spirited circumstances. The second part is obviously false. Class resentment is a card Dems play over and over and over, and commenters leapt at a chance to do it. Do you still argue that your premise holds?

And yes, I focused on public employees. That is the debate of the moment. The same issues also came up regarding the UAW during the bailout of auto companies. Why? Because tax dollars are involved. Those pay increases and benefits come out of the public's pocket, totally changing the dynamic. You are far more likely to resent someone getting a better deal than you when you pay for it. When a union gets a good deal from a private company (that's not seeking a bailout), the public generally applauds.

I fully appreciate your overall point that people should want others to be paid more - it feeds an upward cycle rather than a downward spiral. Agreed.

But in a place like Ohio now, that's hard for everyman to see. Even if people see that bigger picture, it's hard to pay for. The greatest resentment here is toward teachers unions, because every raise, every cost-of-living increase, every health care cost increase, every experience step raise means your kids' busing gets axed, extracurricular fees go up or a property tax increase goes on the ballot amid a foreclosure crisis.

On that level, it's not bosses vs workers. It's a machinist who has his hours and pay cut vs. teachers seeking raises (or maintaining the status quo). The more that public employee compensation differs from that of the masses that pay for it, the more the masses will feel squeezed and cry foul.

That said, there are some structural funding issues that contribute to those two people being at odds. In Ohio, if Republicans are not responsible for creating those, they are at least responsible for ignoring them, (as did the recently-departed Democratic governor).

Okay, I'll try again.You did

Doctor Cleveland — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 05:54:00 +0000

In reply to OK, I'll try again. You

Okay, I'll try again.

You did not, in fact, say what you now claim to have said. You did not make a claim that both parties traffic equally in divisive rhetoric or, as you put it, taking away what others have. You said this:

I disagree with your argument that "The Republican position is that you should want other people to lose what they have." That's the Democratic position, which has always been about taking from haves and giving to have-nots. We may be seeing more resentment between people with smaller differences in economic class than before, but Democrats have always played off of resentment of large class divisions.

There's no "both sides do it" there. You plainly say that this is "the Democratic position," not a position that both parties take. Your later claims that you were just saying that I was a pot, or a kettle, or whatever kitchen appliance you purport that I am, are not borne out by what you actually wrote.

On the other hand, you did ignore the actual wording of my original post. That post makes an argument in general terms about the way the labor market operates, and the ways in pay cuts to other workers leads to one's own pay getting cut.

Rather than responding to the general point, or indeed to any of the arguments actually put forward in my post, you fixated on a specific instance (albeit a topical one) in which you think workers' pay should be cut. Then you list a bunch of reasons for why those workers should be forced to take cuts. You clearly aren't looking at both sides of the question; you put all your energy into arguing for workers to lose wages or other compensation. You don't seem to have met an argument for cutting workers' pay that you don't like.

And of course, you ignore the basic problem that my post puts forth, that it's impossible to cut those people's pay without affecting others'.

Several other commenters responded to you as if you were a conservative because you put forward a list of arguments for cutting workers' pay (but no arguments against it), and because you demonized Democrats as people who appeal to class divisions (and despite your later change of song, because you denied that it was the Republican position). In short, you got taken for a conservative because everything you contributed to the thread made you sound like one. You can claim that you aren't, but dude, there are Kool-Aid stains all over your chin.

OK, I'll try again. You

Patrick — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:53:00 +0000

In reply to I'm NOT taking the full

OK, I'll try again.

You state: "The Republican position is that you should want other people to lose what they have."

The immediate response that pops in my head is,"That's what Democrats suggest all the time about the rich!"

So I note that this is the same attitude lefties have toward the wealth of the upper class. Pot, kettle and all that.

Your commenters object, saying basically, "No we don't," while throwing around loaded language that supports my point. "Yes you do," I say back. Somehow that makes me the enemy voice of the Republican party, I guess. Heaven forbid that anyone might suggest that motives should be examined by everyone.

Pointing out that both sides are guilty of fueling and feeding off of class resentment does not make me a Republican fanatic, or even sympathizer. A foul is a foul is a foul, regardless of what team you're rooting for.

I'm NOT taking the full

Doctor Cleveland — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:52:00 +0000

In reply to Um....go back and read my

I'm NOT taking the full Republican position or making moral arguments or saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed,

You're also both acting as examples of lefties wanting people that have more to lose what they have,

Um....go back and read my

Patrick — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:59:00 +0000

In reply to There are too many assertions

Um....go back and read my original response. I'm NOT taking the full Republican position or making moral arguments or saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed, though everyone seems to want to put those words in my mouth.

My point was that some of your observations needed more qualification or needed to recognize that the tactics you accuse Republicans of are just Democratic tactics turned in a new direction.

Just because I don't drink the leftist Kool-Aid doesn't mean I'm swilling the stuff from the Right.

You are correct that I inserted "public" into this. My bad. I kinda had that on my mind since that's the big crisis in Wisconsin and Ohio at the moment.

Clintonomics kicked the can

Resistance — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:37:11 +0000

In reply to Forget that we're talking

Clintonomics kicked the can down the road, We Democrats are going to suffer for the shortsightedness.

"But so many on the left seem to think Clintonomics, which I basically just saw as attempting to micro manage economic problems as they appeared, and mostly successfully, as evil and in league with what ails us now.

What ails us now, is because of lousy trade agreements; we are reaping what Ross Perot warned us would happen if NAFTA was enacted ...That giant sucking sound as industry moved overseas, would destroy the tax base.

The tax burden was shifted to the middle class, as industries moved overseas, decent wages left too, Tax revenues significantly reduced, the debt increased.

The seed was planted for the TEA PARTY

Thanks President Clinton, for NOTHING

Corporations and Chambers of Commerce convinced the public, free trade would be good for America......How was that supposed to work again? We could by cheaper goods, and the American working class would live happily ever- after?

It takes money to run the government of WE THE PEOPLE,

Corporations are just like everyone else, they don’t like taxes. ......So what did Corporations and Chambers of Commerce do……shifted the paying of taxes onto the middle class.

A middle class to stupid to realize, that every time they bought that $25.00 TV from a foreign country, or that cheap refrigerator, or foreign car, or washing machine, the dumb working class American was advancing the agenda of those wanting to do away with Social Security, Medicare and the safety net., all of those programs needs a tax base.

The sucking sound Ross Perot warned would happen; happened not by accident, but by design . With a destroyed tax base, creating inadequate revenue therefore creating large deficits and eventually enslaving the American worker to compete in the global slave market, to pay back the debt. No money for educating the slave class, no more safety net

Now because some dumb NAFTA supporters, couldn’t realize the ~~law of unintended consequences,~~ scheme, the trap was sprung; aided by the Democratic President Bill Clinton

Now middle class America, under the banner of the TEA Party movement says, “Taxes are to high” …Well DOH…… Corporations shifted the burden onto YOU, the middle class.

Corporations only care about defense, because someone’s going to have to defend Corporations.

In Arizona the Republicans are talking about cutting business taxes in order to attract businesses to come to Arizona. I suppose other States will do the same?

Well guess what folks; the taxes the businesses would have paid will not be paid the burden has been transfered onto the working class.

That is what our bad trade policies have done, that is what Exporting jobs has done, shifted the burden onto the middle class who is now working for lower wages, generating less taxes to support the people.

What a heck of a trade off, can you hear that sucking sound? Maybe if you kneel down you can hear it?

FWIW, I have the same

Verified Atheist — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:43:19 +0000

In reply to Huh. I have never in my life

FWIW, I have the same experience as you, Doc, and arguably for the same reasons.

Huh. I have never in my life

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:40:10 +0000

In reply to Forget that we're talking

Huh. I have never in my life seen the phrase "Eisenhower era tax rates" in the left blogosphere before now. I'm very accustomed to phrases like "Clinton era rates" and the newer meme "Reagan era rates." I mean, those Eisenhower rates were so bad for growth that the 1950s had a massive sustained economic boom, but I don't see people calling for them.

Maybe people say that in diaries on Kos, and maybe I spend too much time reading policy wonks like Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias. But if that's a failing, I'm unlikely to correct it soon. And I never see liberal policy wonks, let alone politicians, calling for that kind of tax increase. So my sense of what "the Democrats want" tends to be governed by that. The left policy wing of the party, the think tanks cats, don't talk about hikes like that, ever.