2026 Mid-Term Elections

[laughing dog]

In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.

... That's not what is happening. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say while the Right is actively working to cut back services to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corp. If you cannot see that I cannot help you.

So now being allowed to keep more of your own money than somebody wishes you were allowed to keep is defined as stealing, is it?

I think reducing needed services to the less fortunate in order to allow wealthy people to keep more of the their money is a type of stealing, if you actually think about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.

... That's not what is happening. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say while the Right is actively working to cut back services to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corp. If you cannot see that I cannot help you.

So now being allowed to keep more of your own money than somebody wishes you were allowed to keep is defined as stealing, is it?

I think reducing needed services to the less fortunate in order to allow wealthy people to keep more of the their money is a type of stealing, if you actually think about it.

It'd be best if we discussed needs, values, etc... instead of being bogged down in a ridiculous battle over definitions of words. It doesn't matter what it is called.

Do people value civil rights, a basic minimum standard of living, recognizing cause and effect, maintaining a system of economics that allows money to flow well enough to reward effort.

People like Bomb need to accept that saving 5% more from the tax bill won't make them happy. People on the left need to accept "taxing the billionaires" won't keep the safety nets intact.

Neither is arguing for a solution.

 

[Toni]

When is this stupid thread going to actually be about the midterms instead of mindlessly arguing about how much we should tax the rich and whether or not Walmart or Amazon pay their employees enough?

But, btw, Walmart here in my relatively low cost area, starting pay is about 15 bucks an hour and the one young man I know who works there loves his job. Meanwhile the women who work at the ALF where I volunteer make 10 dollars an hour. It's a small, locally owned facility. I think caring for frail, older adults who often suffer from cognitive decline is a much more stressful, difficult job compared to working in retail. Just saying. One thing that is drastically over due is raising the minimum wage, but are any politicians running in the midterms even talking about that? The minimum wage is still 7.25 an hour and although I doubt anyone is working for that low pay, but shouldn't that be a midterm issue? ( just trying to get this thread back on the topic if that's possible. )

Let me add one more unrelated thing. Many small businesses sell their products on Amazon, including Evolvefish.com. if you're not familiar with it, it's a small atheist owned online business that sells pins, car decals, t-shirts etc. primarily related to secularism. I've bought things from them, but now when I buy something from them, I do it via Amazon because I'm a prime member and shipping is free. I also like Amazon for two other reasons. They sell things that are impossible to find anywhere else and I get digital dollars often if I agree to allow for a later shipping date. My kindle is full of books that I've paid little or nothing for, that I've purchased from Amazon, including some books on Atheism. Bezos may be an asshole, but I like Amazon for many reasons, including the fact that it was the only place we could find the parts needed to repair our gas logs this past winter, among other things. Not that this has a damn thing to do with the midterm elections, but since this thread is all over the place, I thought I'd add my two cents.

Amazon reportedly often delays payments/compensation to vendors who sell via their platform. Amazon will pay faster but the vendor must accept a lesser payment. Yes, a lot of vendors do sell on Amazon. Not all are thrilled with the experience and some feel they have little choice.

Your friend who earns $15/hr at Walmart can have a modest amount left over after paying his rent, utilities, etc. in GA, but not after he pays income tax. I don't doubt that it's better than a lot of jobs to be had. But I du o know people who have worked at Walmart and detested it because of the poor pay, poor hours, demands for availability whenever Walmart wanted meaning it was impossible to have another job in addition tot he part time gig at Walmart. I'm glad your friend is happy.

I definitely get the appeal of Amazon. I'm also (still) a Prime member although I don't know how much longer I will continue. I like that I can get 'free' shipping and sometimes the prices are pretty good. I can access some things there that I can't find locally or even in The Big City. Conversely I can find things locally or in The Big City that I can't find on Amazon. On Amazon, it is very difficult to assess the quality of items which can be an issue. I don't need to spend money on junk and more junk does not need to be made. (But junk I mean something that doesn't work or breaks after one or two uses). But I also wonder how the authors whose work is 'free' on amazon or only $1 for a download feel about their compensation? I order my books from other retailers now, if I am not able to go in person to a real book store. I can and should make more use of the used book store in town but again, I think authors should be compensated for their work. And I never really liked my Kindle. I haven't even fired it up for years now. Wonder if it still works???

I live more than 100 miles from any major city and the retail environment in my town is.....sparse. I end up doing a lot of my shopping on line, although I'd rather not. But it is also difficult to find my size of anything in a physical store, even at the big city. Virtually impossible, aside from cheap socks and underwear, in my town. Even if I drive to the Big City, there is not more than a 50% chance that they will carry anything I need in my size. Sometimes, they will offer to order it from another store which is, imo, not better than what I can do on my own, without driving 100+ miles to do it. Mostly, I stick with a handful of retailers whose products and quality I know and trust and purchase from them, returning what doesn't work. I'm extremely grateful to all of the Asian and Latina ladies because now it is actually possible for me to reliably find shoes in my size. For years, it was a struggle and I often wore children's sneakers. Not that I minded that it was kids sneakers but at a certain point in my life, I needed the support found in adult shoes. And sometimes a sneaker just wasn't the right shoe. And now I need supports in most of those shoes.

 

[WAB]

There are uber wealthy people who are shit, and there are uber wealthy who do good and even great things. The idea that being super rich is equal to being a ruthless, inhumane monster is stupid.

And I say this as a person with a total wealth of eight dollars, plus a bag or two of clothing and necessary items, living with his sister and awaiting his first meager Social Security payment.

And who here worships the super rich?

I think that the uber wealthy who do more good than harm are extremely rare among the uber wealthy.

There are uber wealthy people who are shit, and there are uber wealthy who do good and even great things. The idea that being super rich is equal to being a ruthless, inhumane monster is stupid.

And I say this as a person with a total wealth of eight dollars, plus a bag or two of clothing and necessary items, living with his sister and awaiting his first meager Social Security payment.

And who here worships the super rich?

Those who don't think the uber rich should pay their fair share of taxes, that they give enough already. Even though sometimes that enough is less than what a worker at a nursing home pays. Or effectively nothing.

It's like going to a nice restaurant with a bunch of your buddies and when the bill comes, the guy who ordered appetizers and surf and turf and dessert and expensive wine wants to split the check evenly with those who ordered a salad. And people saying yeah, that's fair. It's not fair just as it's not fair or right to expect the rich guy to always pick up the check for the whole table.

I simply object to your use of the word 'worship'. You do know what worship means, so if we're talking about people who think billionaires are taxed enough already, we have zero justification in saying they worship billionaires unless they indicate that in their posts. Which no one has done.

Yes this is a nit, a minor point about what words mean. Sorry.

 

[Elixir]

So if every single democratic republic that has ever existed was incompatible with whichever principles you label "the principles of a democratic republic", why the bejesus should anyone accept your assertion that the principles you slapped that label onto were in point of fact the actual principles of a democratic republic?

Principles and what is realized are never the same thing.
There has never been an actual realized democracy that operated continuously for a significant duration for a population of more than three people.

 

[laughing dog]

In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.

... That's not what is happening. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say while the Right is actively working to cut back services to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corp. If you cannot see that I cannot help you.

So now being allowed to keep more of your own money than somebody wishes you were allowed to keep is defined as stealing, is it?

I think reducing needed services to the less fortunate in order to allow wealthy people to keep more of the their money is a type of stealing, if you actually think about it.

It'd be best if we discussed needs, values, etc... instead of being bogged down in a ridiculous battle over definitions of words. It doesn't matter what it is called.

What it is called reveals the values behind it.

Do people value civil rights, a basic minimum standard of living, recognizing cause and effect, maintaining a system of economics that allows money to flow well enough to reward effort.

That is a valid question.

People like Bomb need to accept that saving 5% more from the tax bill won't make them happy. People on the left need to accept "taxing the billionaires" won't keep the safety nets intact.

I disagree with your value judgment. There people who do get pleasure from such savings. And "taxing billlionaires" may keep safety nets intact.

 

[Toni]

There are uber wealthy people who are shit, and there are uber wealthy who do good and even great things. The idea that being super rich is equal to being a ruthless, inhumane monster is stupid.

And I say this as a person with a total wealth of eight dollars, plus a bag or two of clothing and necessary items, living with his sister and awaiting his first meager Social Security payment.

And who here worships the super rich?

I think that the uber wealthy who do more good than harm are extremely rare among the uber wealthy.

There are uber wealthy people who are shit, and there are uber wealthy who do good and even great things. The idea that being super rich is equal to being a ruthless, inhumane monster is stupid.

And I say this as a person with a total wealth of eight dollars, plus a bag or two of clothing and necessary items, living with his sister and awaiting his first meager Social Security payment.

And who here worships the super rich?

Those who don't think the uber rich should pay their fair share of taxes, that they give enough already. Even though sometimes that enough is less than what a worker at a nursing home pays. Or effectively nothing.

It's like going to a nice restaurant with a bunch of your buddies and when the bill comes, the guy who ordered appetizers and surf and turf and dessert and expensive wine wants to split the check evenly with those who ordered a salad. And people saying yeah, that's fair. It's not fair just as it's not fair or right to expect the rich guy to always pick up the check for the whole table.

I simply object to your use of the word 'worship'. You do know what worship means, so if we're talking about people who think billionaires are taxed enough already, we have zero justification in saying they worship billionaires unless they indicate that in their posts. Which no one has done.

Yes this is a nit, a minor point about what words mean. Sorry.

I accept that you don’t accept my word.

To me, it was a good choice because some keep saying how hard these people work and how much they pay! Even though in reality, it is as Warren Buffet says: they pay less than their secretaries-if they have secretaries. Less than the third assistant house cleaner.

Part of my push to tax the uber wealthy more -and in general overhaul the federal tax code is that often very wealthy people exploit various loopholes to avoid paying any personal income tax. To me, that’s a gross injustice.

But even worse, imo, is that we fail-over and over and over again-to hold even very wealthy not just ultra wealthy to the same standards of justice as we hold poor people and ourselves. We allow them an outsized influence over public affairs, from small towns to large cities to states to the federal government and often, internationally. This is anti-democratic in the extreme. We allow the very wealthy and uber wealthy to purchase elections for their own personal benefit, to avoid rules and regulations, including important environmental rules and regulations, USSC justices and more. Oh, sure, most of us cluck our disapproval but we allow Walmarts to move into what becomes a prime piece of real estate after we fill in important wetlands and give them tax abatements, etc. all for the privilege of having them bring shitty jobs and shitty goods and drive out local businesses who cannot afford to compete with the predatory pricing. So we end up buying what they think we should buy for prices they decide we should pay.

Which is bad enough. But the truly terrible thing is that we allow wealthy people to avoid arrest, criminal charges and any consequences for whatever crimes they commit. We even eject someone who brags that he could shoot someone dead on Fifth Avenue and no one would care. We allow them to choose our ‘representatives’ who really only serve the interests of their biggest donors who sure ain’t me or you.

We hold them above the law. And admire them for what they. An get away with. To me, that is worship.

I understand if it is not to you.

 

[WAB]

There are uber wealthy people who are shit, and there are uber wealthy who do good and even great things. The idea that being super rich is equal to being a ruthless, inhumane monster is stupid.

And I say this as a person with a total wealth of eight dollars, plus a bag or two of clothing and necessary items, living with his sister and awaiting his first meager Social Security payment.

And who here worships the super rich?

I think that the uber wealthy who do more good than harm are extremely rare among the uber wealthy.

There are uber wealthy people who are shit, and there are uber wealthy who do good and even great things. The idea that being super rich is equal to being a ruthless, inhumane monster is stupid.

And I say this as a person with a total wealth of eight dollars, plus a bag or two of clothing and necessary items, living with his sister and awaiting his first meager Social Security payment.

And who here worships the super rich?

Those who don't think the uber rich should pay their fair share of taxes, that they give enough already. Even though sometimes that enough is less than what a worker at a nursing home pays. Or effectively nothing.

It's like going to a nice restaurant with a bunch of your buddies and when the bill comes, the guy who ordered appetizers and surf and turf and dessert and expensive wine wants to split the check evenly with those who ordered a salad. And people saying yeah, that's fair. It's not fair just as it's not fair or right to expect the rich guy to always pick up the check for the whole table.

I simply object to your use of the word 'worship'. You do know what worship means, so if we're talking about people who think billionaires are taxed enough already, we have zero justification in saying they worship billionaires unless they indicate that in their posts. Which no one has done.

Yes this is a nit, a minor point about what words mean. Sorry.

I accept that you don’t accept my word.

To me, it was a good choice because some keep saying how hard these people work and how much they pay! Even though in reality, it is as Warren Buffet says: they pay less than their secretaries-if they have secretaries. Less than the third assistant house cleaner.

Part of my push to tax the uber wealthy more -and in general overhaul the federal tax code is that often very wealthy people exploit various loopholes to avoid paying any personal income tax. To me, that’s a gross injustice.

But even worse, imo, is that we fail-over and over and over again-to hold even very wealthy not just ultra wealthy to the same standards of justice as we hold poor people and ourselves. We allow them an outsized influence over public affairs, from small towns to large cities to states to the federal government and often, internationally. This is anti-democratic in the extreme. We allow the very wealthy and uber wealthy to purchase elections for their own personal benefit, to avoid rules and regulations, including important environmental rules and regulations, USSC justices and more. Oh, sure, most of us cluck our disapproval but we allow Walmarts to move into what becomes a prime piece of real estate after we fill in important wetlands and give them tax abatements, etc. all for the privilege of having them bring shitty jobs and shitty goods and drive out local businesses who cannot afford to compete with the predatory pricing. So we end up buying what they think we should buy for prices they decide we should pay.

Which is bad enough. But the truly terrible thing is that we allow wealthy people to avoid arrest, criminal charges and any consequences for whatever crimes they commit. We even eject someone who brags that he could shoot someone dead on Fifth Avenue and no one would care. We allow them to choose our ‘representatives’ who really only serve the interests of their biggest donors who sure ain’t me or you.

We hold them above the law. And admire them for what they. An get away with. To me, that is worship.

I understand if it is not to you.

Okay. Thanks for your explanation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.

... That's not what is happening. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say while the Right is actively working to cut back services to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corp. If you cannot see that I cannot help you.

So now being allowed to keep more of your own money than somebody wishes you were allowed to keep is defined as stealing, is it?

I think reducing needed services to the less fortunate in order to allow wealthy people to keep more of the their money is a type of stealing, if you actually think about it.

It'd be best if we discussed needs, values, etc... instead of being bogged down in a ridiculous battle over definitions of words. It doesn't matter what it is called.

What it is called reveals the values behind it.

It is a distraction.

Do people value civil rights, a basic minimum standard of living, recognizing cause and effect, maintaining a system of economics that allows money to flow well enough to reward effort.

That is a valid question.

People like Bomb need to accept that saving 5% more from the tax bill won't make them happy. People on the left need to accept "taxing the billionaires" won't keep the safety nets intact.

I disagree with your value judgment. There people who do get pleasure from such savings. And "taxing billlionaires" may keep safety nets intact.

It won't be enough. It never is. Materialism fails at happiness because of impermanence of self. That doesn't mean materialism is wrong, just that saving some won't be enough. It never is enough.

 

[laughing dog]

In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.

... That's not what is happening. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say while the Right is actively working to cut back services to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corp. If you cannot see that I cannot help you.

So now being allowed to keep more of your own money than somebody wishes you were allowed to keep is defined as stealing, is it?

I think reducing needed services to the less fortunate in order to allow wealthy people to keep more of the their money is a type of stealing, if you actually think about it.

It'd be best if we discussed needs, values, etc... instead of being bogged down in a ridiculous battle over definitions of words. It doesn't matter what it is called.

What it is called reveals the values behind it.

It is a distraction.

Maybe, but it information is always useful.

Do people value civil rights, a basic minimum standard of living, recognizing cause and effect, maintaining a system of economics that allows money to flow well enough to reward effort.

That is a valid question.

People like Bomb need to accept that saving 5% more from the tax bill won't make them happy. People on the left need to accept "taxing the billionaires" won't keep the safety nets intact.

I disagree with your value judgment. There people who do get pleasure from such savings. And "taxing billlionaires" may keep safety nets intact.

It won't be enough. It never is. Materialism fails at happiness because of impermanence of self. That doesn't mean materialism is wrong, just that saving some won't be enough. It never is enough.

Happiness is a continuum. For some, it increases their happiness. The fact it means others are worse off is simply an added bonus for some of them as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course we are. We are subsidizing any employer who pays employees so poorly that they must supplement their income by food stamps, Medicaid, and other poverty relief measures. We are subsidizing them by increased number of children who need to go to subsidized daycares, Head Start programs, be in Medicaid, or free lunch programs, etc. We also are subsidizing all corporations by building infrastructure: roads, water and sewer, utilities, etc. We are especially subsidizing corporations every single time they are given tax breaks when they decide to build another store or warehouse in any community.

What you fail to understand is that removing bad jobs won't make good jobs appear. The actual result is pushing people into unemployment.

We are subsidizing them by allowing mega corporations such as Amazon and Walmart to underpay their suppliers and by cornering the market after they’ve drive out more local retailers —at which point they are free to charges they want and supply what they choose. When people have few choices about where and what they can buy because other options have been eliminated, we have helped create that situation by subsidizing corporations that do not, in fact, need the subsidies to survive or thrive.

This is off the top of my head.

Reality: you end up lowering most everyone's standard of living this way. Walmart is better than the mom-and-pops.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course we are. We are subsidizing any employer who pays employees so poorly that they must supplement their income by food stamps, Medicaid, and other poverty relief measures. We are subsidizing them by increased number of children who need to go to subsidized daycares, Head Start programs, be in Medicaid, or free lunch programs, etc. We also are subsidizing all corporations by building infrastructure: roads, water and sewer, utilities, etc. We are especially subsidizing corporations every single time they are given tax breaks when they decide to build another store or warehouse in any community.

What you fail to understand is that removing bad jobs won't make good jobs appear. The actual result is pushing people into unemployment.

The status quo is we are currently supporting housing and food for people with jobs. That seems absurd.

Our economy transitioned from manufacturing to services. It was profitable, it made costs go down, made access to goods easier... for the people who didn't lose their jobs.

Now our economy will be transitioning from services to some services/gig/AI, while you are whining about paying people who work at low wages higher wages. What you should be thinking about is how is to manage a population when there are only jobs for 1/5 of it in America? We clumsily made our way through the first transition. And no one is asking the questions about the next one which is going to be much harsher.

 

[Jarhyn]

Walmart doesn't do 'full time' employment except for a few people. Everyone else is relegated to part time hours and expected to be available whenever they are wanted.

I have this particular thought on the subject that bears repeating:

Some part time jobs aren't really part time. Most in fact.

I have a true part-time job: I have a fixed weekly schedule, know when my hours will be, and have full leverage to tell my employer I cannot work outside those times; this comes with the expectation that I notify my employer when I cannot as soon as I am able.

False part-time jobs are part-time jobs wherein scheduling is on-the-fly, and wherein unavailability is seen as a "strike" in any way or capacity.

These are "false" because the open requirement for availability at all times on all days prevents any secondary "part" within their time short of even less profitable gig-work.

If a person is constantly forced to have plans no longer than 1-2 weeks out because of a constantly shifting schedule, that job has successfully occupied a "more than full time" worth of commitment within their lives!

Worse, my experience with WalMart is that even when you tell them you cannot work on some date or some time, they will sometimes schedule you anyway and then write you up for it!

Personally, I think this should at least mean that such "open" availability, and the desire/usage of it, should entitlebthe "openly available" employee to the benefits of a full time position, even if not the hours.

This would promptly end WalMart and other companies' abusive practices of monopolizing people's entire 168 hours of time a week in exchange for 20 hours of wages.

Some reasonable limit like "scheduling time cannot exceed 2x of scheduled time, and all benefits accrue according to scheduling time (max 80 hours scheduling time). All time scheduled outside of scheduling time is overtime" would throw a massive nuke into it, both forcing employers to maximize scheduled time and minimize scheduling times, and regularizing hours.

Some employees would remain "full time floaters", or "cover positions", with 80 hours of availability and 40 hours of work, some benefitted employees working 30-ish hours with 60 , and then the remainder would be scheduled for around 20 hours with 25-30 hours of scheduling availability.

This would guarantee that employees have regular availability, then for actual second jobs.

If this causes some pain to WalMart in throwing a wrench in their carefully oiled employee-fucking apparatus... Good. Good job 100% well done, a better result could only be achieved by WalMart preparing for it and ushering it in themselves.

 

[bilby]

The idea that being super rich is equal to being a ruthless, inhumane monster is stupid.

Not really. Theres no necessary link, but there is a strong correlation, and a good reason for that correlation: It's a lot easier to get super rich if you are a ruthless, inhumane monster.

If you are smart but not ruthless, you can have an idea that will make billions; But in that case, someone who is not as smart, but who is ruthless and inhumane will try to steal it, and being ruthless and unburdened by any need to act humanely, they will likely succeed.

Some big money making ventures are harder to steal than others. If you are a performer or sports star, whose value lies in individual talent, and if you are savvy enough (or are pre-warned by earlier victims), you may be able to avoid getting bilked by an agent.

But for the most part, the uber rich are people of middling intelligence whose psychopathy allows them to focus on making money to the exclusion of all other considerations, and whose big break comes from someone else, who is far more intelligent, but far less focussed on wealth.

The right-wing laud the uber wealthy as drivers of innovation who deserve their riches because they brought society the fruits of their innovation; But many are just parasites living large on other peoples' ideas, while the actual innovators make far less.

When the reward for innovation is to be a victim of theft, and the reward for being an effective thief is great wealth, it's not long before you have a kleptocracy run by simpleton popularists, like the current USA.

 

[bilby]

In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.

... That's not what is happening. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say while the Right is actively working to cut back services to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corp. If you cannot see that I cannot help you.

So now being allowed to keep more of your own money than somebody wishes you were allowed to keep is defined as stealing, is it?

I think reducing needed services to the less fortunate in order to allow wealthy people to keep more of the their money is a type of stealing, if you actually think about it.

It'd be best if we discussed needs, values, etc... instead of being bogged down in a ridiculous battle over definitions of words. It doesn't matter what it is called.

Do people value civil rights, a basic minimum standard of living, recognizing cause and effect, maintaining a system of economics that allows money to flow well enough to reward effort.

People like Bomb need to accept that saving 5% more from the tax bill won't make them happy. People on the left need to accept "taxing the billionaires" won't keep the safety nets intact.

Neither is arguing for a solution.

Indeed.

But when pulling in opposite directions as they are, one is pulling towards a better balance, and the other towards making the imbalance even worse.

Politics isn't really about the detailed platflrms of the candidates, so much as at is about shifting the Overton Window.

 

[Toni]

In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.

... That's not what is happening. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say while the Right is actively working to cut back services to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corp. If you cannot see that I cannot help you.

So now being allowed to keep more of your own money than somebody wishes you were allowed to keep is defined as stealing, is it?

I think reducing needed services to the less fortunate in order to allow wealthy people to keep more of the their money is a type of stealing, if you actually think about it.

It'd be best if we discussed needs, values, etc... instead of being bogged down in a ridiculous battle over definitions of words. It doesn't matter what it is called.

What it is called reveals the values behind it.

It is a distraction.

Do people value civil rights, a basic minimum standard of living, recognizing cause and effect, maintaining a system of economics that allows money to flow well enough to reward effort.

That is a valid question.

People like Bomb need to accept that saving 5% more from the tax bill won't make them happy. People on the left need to accept "taxing the billionaires" won't keep the safety nets intact.

I disagree with your value judgment. There people who do get pleasure from such savings. And "taxing billlionaires" may keep safety nets intact.

It won't be enough. It never is. Materialism fails at happiness because of impermanence of self. That doesn't mean materialism is wrong, just that saving some won't be enough. It never is enough.

I guess I don’t see saving ‘some’ as materialism. I see saving those we can save is a basic tenet of decent society—and a decent human being. It will always be true that we cannot save or help everyone. But it is and always will be true that we fail everyone when we don’t even try. Including, especially ourselves.

Of course we are. We are subsidizing any employer who pays employees so poorly that they must supplement their income by food stamps, Medicaid, and other poverty relief measures. We are subsidizing them by increased number of children who need to go to subsidized daycares, Head Start programs, be in Medicaid, or free lunch programs, etc. We also are subsidizing all corporations by building infrastructure: roads, water and sewer, utilities, etc. We are especially subsidizing corporations every single time they are given tax breaks when they decide to build another store or warehouse in any community.

What you fail to understand is that removing bad jobs won't make good jobs appear. The actual result is pushing people into unemployment.

We are subsidizing them by allowing mega corporations such as Amazon and Walmart to underpay their suppliers and by cornering the market after they’ve drive out more local retailers —at which point they are free to charges they want and supply what they choose. When people have few choices about where and what they can buy because other options have been eliminated, we have helped create that situation by subsidizing corporations that do not, in fact, need the subsidies to survive or thrive.

This is off the top of my head.

Reality: you end up lowering most everyone's standard of living this way. Walmart is better than the mom-and-pops.

For whom? By what metrics? How do you know?

Recently a smallish ( I guess) Aldis moved into town. I don’t usually shop there—I have my grocery store preferences pretty entrenched—but I have checked it outa d at least for a while, they were the only retailer where I could find a certain item fir my grandchild, so I’d head over when they were coming for a visit. I couldn’t figure out for the first few times what bugged me about the place. Aside from the lighting and having to put a deposit on a grocery cart —which I never needed to do. But it struck me as petty.

Anyway, I was waiting in line with my one item and the person ahead of me must have had enough in her cart to fill four or five grocery bags full. I had a single item.

Now, where I live, almost all of the time, people will motion you ahead of you have only one or a few items and they have a full cart. I do it myself. But this person avoided eye contact, and very mechanically put her stuff on the conveyor belt, bagged and paid by card, of course, making no eye contact with anyone. Ok. Everyone has busy days where you just have to get through it. My turn: cashier with dead eyes, from what I could tell because: no eye contact. I looked down the line and no one is chatting with neighbors. No eye contact. We might as well have been dead.

The stores where I normally go? You chat people up in the aisles, reach things or ask for things to be reached for you, sometimes have log conversations with the parent of your kid’s high school best friend. Cashiers who range from college age to retirement age are cheerful, helpful and curious, asking how one cooks artichokes, for instance. Come ting that’s their favorite flavor. And so one. She’s retired fir real now bit one checker used to tell me when I had picked up the more expensive brand of something by accident at a time when that made real difference —and patiently waited—or sent someone to change it for me. Back when I used checks, the college kids seeing the name in the check, asked if I was related to their professor. Or one of my kids. It’s actually a small store that’s part of a chain. But it’s my favorite by a lot because no one’s eyes are dead and smiles are real.

Sometimes I need to go to a larger chain grocery and that falls between Aldi automatons and my friendly local place. Sometimes a little eye contact. Guys at the seafood case are friendly. Cashiers make pleasantries by rote and are startled if you respond like they are real people. Sometimes people who work there know where to find that item I’m looking for. Not always. I see people I know and we say hi but mostly everyone there is in a hurry.

I’m pretty sure the friendly small store I love won’t be around in 10 years. Maybe less. The owner is about my age and I don’t think his kids are interested in running it when he gives it up. That will be a sad day. A little bit of humanity will have left town.

I can’t see how anyone is better off who works at Aldis or the bigger chain. I’m glad for some diversity. Some people say Aldis is cheaper. Maybe it is. But it sure is unpleasant.

 

[bilby]

Walmart doesn't do 'full time' employment except for a few people. Everyone else is relegated to part time hours and expected to be available whenever they are wanted.

I have this particular thought on the subject that bears repeating:

Some part time jobs aren't really part time. Most in fact.

I have a true part-time job: I have a fixed weekly schedule, know when my hours will be, and have full leverage to tell my employer I cannot work outside those times; this comes with the expectation that I notify my employer when I cannot as soon as I am able.

False part-time jobs are part-time jobs wherein scheduling is on-the-fly, and wherein unavailability is seen as a "strike" in any way or capacity.

These are "false" because the open requirement for availability at all times on all days prevents any secondary "part" within their time short of even less profitable gig-work.

If a person is constantly forced to have plans no longer than 1-2 weeks out because of a constantly shifting schedule, that job has successfully occupied a "more than full time" worth of commitment within their lives!

Worse, my experience with WalMart is that even when you tell them you cannot work on some date or some time, they will sometimes schedule you anyway and then write you up for it!

Personally, I think this should at least mean that such "open" availability, and the desire/usage of it, should entitlebthe "openly available" employee to the benefits of a full time position, even if not the hours.

This would promptly end WalMart and other companies' abusive practices of monopolizing people's entire 168 hours of time a week in exchange for 20 hours of wages.

Some reasonable limit like "scheduling time cannot exceed 2x of scheduled time, and all benefits accrue according to scheduling time (max 80 hours scheduling time). All time scheduled outside of scheduling time is overtime" would throw a massive nuke into it, both forcing employers to maximize scheduled time and minimize scheduling times, and regularizing hours.

Some employees would remain "full time floaters", or "cover positions", with 80 hours of availability and 40 hours of work, some benefitted employees working 30-ish hours with 60 , and then the remainder would be scheduled for around 20 hours with 25-30 hours of scheduling availability.

This would guarantee that employees have regular availability, then for actual second jobs.

If this causes some pain to WalMart in throwing a wrench in their carefully oiled employee-fucking apparatus... Good. Good job 100% well done, a better result could only be achieved by WalMart preparing for it and ushering it in themselves.

In Australia, casual work (what you describe as "fake part-time" work, ie work where you don't know your hours well in advance), has significant protections for employees.

Not least of these is "casual loading"; A casual employee is paid the same hourly rate as a full-time employee doing the same work, plus at least 25%, in compensation for their not accruing the leave entitlements of full-time workers.

In addition to that loading, there are usually minimum hours rules (if an employer wants you to work fewer than three continuous hours on a given day, they must pay you at least three hours (plus loading) for each period of paid work that day); Minimum notice rules for changes to work rosters (employees can refuse without penalty if given fewer than 24 hours notice of work); etc., etc.

More information at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/starting-employment/types-of-employees/casual-employees

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do people value civil rights, a basic minimum standard of living, recognizing cause and effect, maintaining a system of economics that allows money to flow well enough to reward effort.

That is a valid question.

People like Bomb need to accept that saving 5% more from the tax bill won't make them happy. People on the left need to accept "taxing the billionaires" won't keep the safety nets intact.

I disagree with your value judgment. There people who do get pleasure from such savings. And "taxing billlionaires" may keep safety nets intact.

It won't be enough. It never is. Materialism fails at happiness because of impermanence of self. That doesn't mean materialism is wrong, just that saving some won't be enough. It never is enough.

I guess I don’t see saving ‘some’ as materialism. I see saving those we can save is a basic tenet of decent society—and a decent human being. It will always be true that we cannot save or help everyone. But it is and always will be true that we fail everyone when we don’t even try. Including, especially ourselves.

I was referring to saving as the tax bill being smaller because of cuts.

 

[Jarhyn]

Walmart doesn't do 'full time' employment except for a few people. Everyone else is relegated to part time hours and expected to be available whenever they are wanted.

I have this particular thought on the subject that bears repeating:

Some part time jobs aren't really part time. Most in fact.

I have a true part-time job: I have a fixed weekly schedule, know when my hours will be, and have full leverage to tell my employer I cannot work outside those times; this comes with the expectation that I notify my employer when I cannot as soon as I am able.

False part-time jobs are part-time jobs wherein scheduling is on-the-fly, and wherein unavailability is seen as a "strike" in any way or capacity.

These are "false" because the open requirement for availability at all times on all days prevents any secondary "part" within their time short of even less profitable gig-work.

If a person is constantly forced to have plans no longer than 1-2 weeks out because of a constantly shifting schedule, that job has successfully occupied a "more than full time" worth of commitment within their lives!

Worse, my experience with WalMart is that even when you tell them you cannot work on some date or some time, they will sometimes schedule you anyway and then write you up for it!

Personally, I think this should at least mean that such "open" availability, and the desire/usage of it, should entitlebthe "openly available" employee to the benefits of a full time position, even if not the hours.

This would promptly end WalMart and other companies' abusive practices of monopolizing people's entire 168 hours of time a week in exchange for 20 hours of wages.

Some reasonable limit like "scheduling time cannot exceed 2x of scheduled time, and all benefits accrue according to scheduling time (max 80 hours scheduling time). All time scheduled outside of scheduling time is overtime" would throw a massive nuke into it, both forcing employers to maximize scheduled time and minimize scheduling times, and regularizing hours.

Some employees would remain "full time floaters", or "cover positions", with 80 hours of availability and 40 hours of work, some benefitted employees working 30-ish hours with 60 , and then the remainder would be scheduled for around 20 hours with 25-30 hours of scheduling availability.

This would guarantee that employees have regular availability, then for actual second jobs.

If this causes some pain to WalMart in throwing a wrench in their carefully oiled employee-fucking apparatus... Good. Good job 100% well done, a better result could only be achieved by WalMart preparing for it and ushering it in themselves.

In Australia, casual work (what you describe as "fake part-time" work, ie work where you don't know your hours well in advance), has significant protections for employees.

Not least of these is "casual loading"; A casual employee is paid the same hourly rate as a full-time employee doing the same work, plus at least 25%, in compensation for their not accruing the leave entitlements of full-time workers.

In addition to that loading, there are usually minimum hours rules (if an employer wants you to work fewer than three continuous hours on a given day, they must pay you at least three hours (plus loading) for each period of paid work that day); Minimum notice rules for changes to work rosters (employees can refuse without penalty if given fewer than 24 hours notice of work); etc., etc.

More information at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/starting-employment/types-of-employees/casual-employees

IOW, not only am I right in theory, but I am proven correct through demonstrated practice.

 

[bilby]

Walmart doesn't do 'full time' employment except for a few people. Everyone else is relegated to part time hours and expected to be available whenever they are wanted.

I have this particular thought on the subject that bears repeating:

Some part time jobs aren't really part time. Most in fact.

I have a true part-time job: I have a fixed weekly schedule, know when my hours will be, and have full leverage to tell my employer I cannot work outside those times; this comes with the expectation that I notify my employer when I cannot as soon as I am able.

False part-time jobs are part-time jobs wherein scheduling is on-the-fly, and wherein unavailability is seen as a "strike" in any way or capacity.

These are "false" because the open requirement for availability at all times on all days prevents any secondary "part" within their time short of even less profitable gig-work.

If a person is constantly forced to have plans no longer than 1-2 weeks out because of a constantly shifting schedule, that job has successfully occupied a "more than full time" worth of commitment within their lives!

Worse, my experience with WalMart is that even when you tell them you cannot work on some date or some time, they will sometimes schedule you anyway and then write you up for it!

Personally, I think this should at least mean that such "open" availability, and the desire/usage of it, should entitlebthe "openly available" employee to the benefits of a full time position, even if not the hours.

This would promptly end WalMart and other companies' abusive practices of monopolizing people's entire 168 hours of time a week in exchange for 20 hours of wages.

Some reasonable limit like "scheduling time cannot exceed 2x of scheduled time, and all benefits accrue according to scheduling time (max 80 hours scheduling time). All time scheduled outside of scheduling time is overtime" would throw a massive nuke into it, both forcing employers to maximize scheduled time and minimize scheduling times, and regularizing hours.

Some employees would remain "full time floaters", or "cover positions", with 80 hours of availability and 40 hours of work, some benefitted employees working 30-ish hours with 60 , and then the remainder would be scheduled for around 20 hours with 25-30 hours of scheduling availability.

This would guarantee that employees have regular availability, then for actual second jobs.

If this causes some pain to WalMart in throwing a wrench in their carefully oiled employee-fucking apparatus... Good. Good job 100% well done, a better result could only be achieved by WalMart preparing for it and ushering it in themselves.

In Australia, casual work (what you describe as "fake part-time" work, ie work where you don't know your hours well in advance), has significant protections for employees.

Not least of these is "casual loading"; A casual employee is paid the same hourly rate as a full-time employee doing the same work, plus at least 25%, in compensation for their not accruing the leave entitlements of full-time workers.

In addition to that loading, there are usually minimum hours rules (if an employer wants you to work fewer than three continuous hours on a given day, they must pay you at least three hours (plus loading) for each period of paid work that day); Minimum notice rules for changes to work rosters (employees can refuse without penalty if given fewer than 24 hours notice of work); etc., etc.

More information at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/starting-employment/types-of-employees/casual-employees

IOW, not only am I right in theory, but I am proven correct through demonstrated practice.

Well sure, but the impact on the Australian economy of these measures has been...

...actually, the Australian economy seems to be doing OK.