Bernie Sanders announces he is running for President

[pgg]

a more democratic socialist lens a la Scandinavia. You are absolutely right that the tax system there, while having a somewhat higher top marginal rate, is also somewhat flatter and more regressive, especially when a VAT is included. The flip side of that is that poverty and homelessness are almost non-existent, crime is lower, people have a basic level of medical care, higher education, and child care taken care of. Not to mention people on average are happier.

Scandinavian countries seem nice, except for the intolerable weather, but there are some issues with making direct comparisons to us.

First and foremost, they are extremely homogenous in their racial, cultural, even geographic makeup. They don't have a big chunk of their population descended from slaves. They don't have reservations where they stashed the natives who lived there when they took over. They aren't nations of immigrants. Their response to and management of their recent surge of refugees and immigrants (which is non-white, and largely Muslim) has been marked by a lot of discord, and a surge of far right nationalism that is every bit as ugly as the worst our own racists have to offer.

Second, while I'll be the first to acknowledge that the US military budget is a monster of our own making, there's no denying that the Scandinavian countries and the rest of Europe's democracies have spent the last 70 years living and prospering under the defense umbrella we have provided. It's easy to pour money into popular social programs when someone else is spending the money to keep the Soviets off your lawn.

There's this notion that their blueprint will work here, that all we have to do is be like them and we'll be happy and healthy and prosperous. Maybe we can mimic some of their successes, but I don't buy for a second that there's some kind of easy button labeled "VAT and 80% marginal tax rate and free college and universal healthcare" ...

I know that's not what you're suggesting but all of these
- we could be like Sweden (happiness)
- we could be like Japan (politeness)
- we could be like Australia (gun control)
- we could be like Jamaica (legal weed)
- we could be like North Korea (no obesity ... OK bad example)
just fail the most basic we're-not-like-them prerequisite.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted50478]

Arguing with someone only makes them more convinced of their position so I will stop. But I am honestly surprised by some of you anesthesia folks. I’d expect this from a family med forum but they got one going about “how can I make the most money”. SDN has become a bit too twilight zone for me.

Really? My experience in the anti-competitive, exclusive contract, non-compete, bribe, and buyout-driven anesthesia job market pushed me to the left.

 

[nimbus]

Scandinavian countries seem nice, except for the intolerable weather, but there are some issues with making direct comparisons to us.

First and foremost, they are extremely homogenous in their racial, cultural, even geographic makeup. They don't have a big chunk of their population descended from slaves. They don't have reservations where they stashed the natives who lived there when they took over. They aren't nations of immigrants. Their response to and management of their recent surge of refugees and immigrants (which is non-white, and largely Muslim) has been marked by a lot of discord, and a surge of far right nationalism that is every bit as ugly as the worst our own racists have to offer.

Second, while I'll be the first to acknowledge that the US military budget is a monster of our own making, there's no denying that the Scandinavian countries and the rest of Europe's democracies have spent the last 70 years living and prospering under the defense umbrella we have provided. It's easy to pour money into popular social programs when someone else is spending the money to keep the Soviets off your lawn.

There's this notion that their blueprint will work here, that all we have to do is be like them and we'll be happy and healthy and prosperous. Maybe we can mimic some of their successes, but I don't buy for a second that there's some kind of easy button labeled "VAT and 80% marginal tax rate and free college and universal healthcare" ...

I know that's not what you're suggesting but all of these
- we could be like Sweden (happiness)
- we could be like Japan (politeness)
- we could be like Australia (gun control)
- we could be like Jamaica (legal weed)
- we could be like North Korea (no obesity ... OK bad example)
just fail the most basic we're not like them prerequisite.

I know of at least one fat guy in North Korea.

 

[medschoolzombie]

Also many if not most young physicians today don’t come from wealth and we worked hard for what we make. So don’t tell me about lack of social mobility in this country.

I would argue that a lot of incoming physicians do come from wealth. Last tome I checked aamc stats, nearly 2/3 of med students don’t have med school loans and at least half come from high earning families. They likely do work hard but they also are more likely to come from wealth

His America is dead. All we can hope for is that the USA retains some small semblance of itself over the next 20 years. AOC is bad for America and will hurt the aspiring middle class the most. You don’t create wealth by redistributing money from the successful to the poor. You create wealth by allowing a free market .

I agree with you that more wealth is created by a free market, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that’s all that’s happening. A real free market would allow companies to fail if they can’t compete; however that’s not what happens here. The govt bails out many companies (like ford) or gives them all free handouts which undermines the idea of a free market

 

[DM27]

There are a few issues, as PGG pointed out, in comparing the US and Scandinavian countries in terms of the net effects of taxes and overall happiness. Part of that would require an enormous paradigm shift for the entire country regarding our priorities and we approach living in general.

This is a decent interview that provides some insight into the happiness aspect: How to Be Happy (Ep. 345) - Freakonomics.

My personal tl;dr summary of this would be: People in Denmark are overall happier because they work less, when it is time to go home they go home regardless of if work is finished, they are fine being on the receiving end of the previously mentioned fact as a consumer, they do not feel a need to pursue wealth or additional gain since they are content with living within the safety net provided when they retire, as a result of not having a large concern of accumulation of wealth they are fine with the loss of money to the increased taxes and increased costs of goods.

A lot of what allows these social support systems to work, as PGG alluded to as well, is the homogeneity of the country and everyone being "on the same page" culturally. The combination of a declining birth rate and a larger than normal influx of non-western migrants has resulted in a slight shift of these cultural norms and that already appears to have somewhat stressed the system. More of the numbers on this are here Denmark: Integrating Immigrants into a Homogeneous Welfare State. Initially it appeared there was a belief that this immigrant influx may solve an upcoming labor force issue, but there is a growing trend towards preference towards increasing nordic-born citizenry. Babies wanted: Nordic countries struggle with falling birth rates. Basically the "do it for your country" initiatives.

One other aspect of the success of the social support state in Sweden that is not often mentioned is that it was off to a major running start by being one of the few countries not involved in any of the major wars of the 20th century, which gave it a huge economic advantage as it became a major supplier to essentially all of rebuilding Europe. However about 20 years after World War II as most of Europe finished rebuilding and began catching up the initial generosity of the model somewhat faltered. There is detail about some of this here http://www.ifn.se/wfiles/wp/wp873.pdf and From War to the Swedish Model - Ekonomifakta.

I personally find the different economic models and social support levels interesting, and how they historically cannot be applied in a cookie cutter fashion from one country to another.

The above is all my opinion, and likely supported selectively by some unconscious biases that led to the sources I tend to gravitate to.

My personal opinion on this matter is that an extensive social support system with low working hours, guaranteed healthcare, and nationwide pensions is the ideal way to do things since ultimately the only real reason we are on this planet is to breed and die so we may as well be able to take it easy and do what we want instead of amassing wealth like it's the high score of a video game. However, I believe that the idea of giving up what we have for a faceless other, and hoping to somehow continue to innovate and work harder to advance the world without adequate incentives, goes against some of the most basic parts of our nature, and as a result will ultimately fail in the majority of attempts.

 

[vector2]

Scandinavian countries seem nice, except for the intolerable weather, but there are some issues with making direct comparisons to us.

First and foremost, they are extremely homogenous in their racial, cultural, even geographic makeup. They don't have a big chunk of their population descended from slaves. They don't have reservations where they stashed the natives who lived there when they took over. They aren't nations of immigrants. Their response to and management of their recent surge of refugees and immigrants (which is non-white, and largely Muslim) has been marked by a lot of discord, and a surge of far right nationalism that is every bit as ugly as the worst our own racists have to offer.

Second, while I'll be the first to acknowledge that the US military budget is a monster of our own making, there's no denying that the Scandinavian countries and the rest of Europe's democracies have spent the last 70 years living and prospering under the defense umbrella we have provided. It's easy to pour money into popular social programs when someone else is spending the money to keep the Soviets off your lawn.

There's this notion that their blueprint will work here, that all we have to do is be like them and we'll be happy and healthy and prosperous. Maybe we can mimic some of their successes, but I don't buy for a second that there's some kind of easy button labeled "VAT and 80% marginal tax rate and free college and universal healthcare" ...

I know that's not what you're suggesting but all of these
- we could be like Sweden (happiness)
- we could be like Japan (politeness)
- we could be like Australia (gun control)
- we could be like Jamaica (legal weed)
- we could be like North Korea (no obesity ... OK bad example)
just fail the most basic we're-not-like-them prerequisite.

Yes, we've discussed on SDN before the homogeneity problem- no one can argue that implementing democratic socialism isn't way easier when the populace is entirely the same and everyone is on board. However, bringing up Scandinavia and parts of UK/Canadian/Australian policy is important because just today my coworker of Vietnamese descent was complaining about how "communist" Bernie, AOC, Harris, Warren etc are and alluding ironically to how well communism worked in Vietnam and Venezuela. Communist dictatorships are not a fair or accurate comparison for the change the US far left wants to implement- 1st world democratic socialist countries are. My wife is a small business owner and employs a number of part time 1099'ers. She pays them 40-80% more than minimum wage depending on experience. Half of her employees are still on medicaid, WIC, or other social programs. We both realize that the money these people need to live is going to come out of our pocket one way or another, either by increased wages or increased taxation on us. Me, personally, I would rather pay more in taxes and make sure everyone has some basic level of food, housing, education, and medical care than try to legislate businesses and corporations into doing what's right in regard to paying their employees fairly and providing benefits.

Even though change is difficult, the alternative is not to throw our hands up and say "oh it's too hard because we have 330 million people who are diverse both culturally and geographically." The Congress is never going to wakeup one day and slap on a 20% VAT and 80% top marginal rate, so incrementalism is where it's at. Social security and medicare at their inception were both fought against extremely hard with the same arguments people are making today, and yet (even though they're not perfect), both programs brought millions of people out of poverty and remain quite popular. Obamacare was hated by many until they realized they actually liked protection for pre-existing conditions and keeping their kids on their plan until they're 26. People argue that a higher marginal tax rate would be the death of America, but yet US GDP per capita growth from 1950-2000 was pretty good even with significantly higher rates than today. Socialism is easy if people feel that their tax dollars are actually being put to good use- therein is where really lies the challenge.

 

[Lawpy]

Yes, we've discussed on SDN before the homogeneity problem- no one can argue that implementing democratic socialism isn't way easier when the populace is entirely the same and everyone is on board. However, bringing up Scandinavia and parts of UK/Canadian/Australian policy is important because just today my coworker of Vietnamese descent was complaining about how "communist" Bernie, AOC, Harris, Warren etc are and alluding ironically to how well communism worked in Vietnam and Venezuela. Communist dictatorships are not a fair or accurate comparison for the change the US far left wants to implement- 1st world democratic socialist countries are.

Even though change is difficult, the alternative is not to throw our hands up and say "oh it's too hard because we have 330 million people who are diverse both culturally and geographically." The Congress is never going to wakeup one day and slap on a 20% VAT and 80% top marginal rate, so incrementalism is where it's at. Social security and medicare at their inception were both fought against extremely hard with the same arguments people are making today, and yet (even though they're not perfect), both programs brought millions of people out of poverty and remain quite popular. Obamacare was hated by many until they realized they actually liked protection for pre-existing conditions and keeping their kids on their plan until they're 26. People argue that a higher marginal tax rate would be the death of America, but yet US GDP per capita growth from 1950-2000 was pretty good even with significantly higher rates than today. Socialism is easy if people feel that their tax dollars are actually being put to good use- therein is where really lies the challenge.

This is true but I also think the effectiveness of socialist policies depends on the leader implementing them. I don't think any leader today are as effective and charismatic as Roosevelt/Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson. Obama tried to implement healthcare reform with ACA but that was widely hated even with the clear benefits. And he's clearly a lot more effective and charismatic than the current Democratic nominees.

 

[DM27]

Generally you need some form of a national crises to push a major shift like this through. The majority of countries currently with democratic socialism put these practices in place during a time where they had unemployment in the 20+% range, double digit inflation, and other national crises occurring that made the people more sympathetic to the potential upside of a drastic change.

Depending on how well run and not corrupt the government was they were either able to eventually reign these things in or they just kept getting worse.

 

[deleted50478]

Yes, we've discussed on SDN before the homogeneity problem- no one can argue that implementing democratic socialism isn't way easier when the populace is entirely the same and everyone is on board. However, bringing up Scandinavia and parts of UK/Canadian/Australian policy is important because just today my coworker of Vietnamese descent was complaining about how "communist" Bernie, AOC, Harris, Warren etc are and alluding ironically to how well communism worked in Vietnam and Venezuela. Communist dictatorships are not a fair or accurate comparison for the change the US far left wants to implement- 1st world democratic socialist countries are. My wife is a small business owner and employs a number of part time 1099'ers. She pays them 40-80% more than minimum wage depending on experience. Half of her employees are still on medicaid, WIC, or other social programs. We both realize that the money these people need to live is going to come out of our pocket one way or another, either by increased wages or increased taxation on us. Me, personally, I would rather pay more in taxes and make sure everyone has some basic level of food, housing, education, and medical care than try to legislate businesses and corporations into doing what's right in regard to paying their employees fairly and providing benefits.

Even though change is difficult, the alternative is not to throw our hands up and say "oh it's too hard because we have 330 million people who are diverse both culturally and geographically." The Congress is never going to wakeup one day and slap on a 20% VAT and 80% top marginal rate, so incrementalism is where it's at. Social security and medicare at their inception were both fought against extremely hard with the same arguments people are making today, and yet (even though they're not perfect), both programs brought millions of people out of poverty and remain quite popular. Obamacare was hated by many until they realized they actually liked protection for pre-existing conditions and keeping their kids on their plan until they're 26. People argue that a higher marginal tax rate would be the death of America, but yet US GDP per capita growth from 1950-2000 was pretty good even with significantly higher rates than today. Socialism is easy if people feel that their tax dollars are actually being put to good use- therein is where really lies the challenge.

An easy place to start is to have more tax brackets extending to much higher incomes for both income tax and capital gains tax rates. Paying 20% if you make millions a year in capital gains is a joke when people making 80k have a 22% marginal rate.

 

[vector2]

An easy place to start is to have more tax brackets extending to much higher incomes for both income tax and capital gains tax rates.

That's a good start. The second thing is severely decreasing the number of people per US house rep by increasing the number of house seats. And outlawing gerrymandering. Then we can actually get an idea of what the people truly want.

 

[d9sccr]

A nation that produces the most number of millionaires. A nation with unprecedented wealth. We are doing a lot of things right but there is room for improvement. I just rarely see more govt. as the answer. the left turns to govt. solutions for every problem. Regulation and more taxation is the answer to every problem. I just don't see it that way.

Why do you need to control production when the plan is to take 70% of the profits? Sure, the game isn't fair. I'd argue it has never been truly fair. But, the solution makes things worse not better. Less govt. and more free market is my answer.

Agree with pretty much all of that. There are very few scenarios where government intervention has resulted in something “good” let alone have the desired effect. It’s incredible how major research arms of both sides have independently identified the same keys to succeeding in the US, but neither party pursues any meaningful legislation to make this easier to accomplish.

It’s also disingenuous the way the Nordic countries are constantly talked about. They have stringent immigration laws to maintain a rather homogeneous population with presumably similar ideas —we can’t even agree on small things anymore, let alone the direction of the country. They also were strongly capitalistic prior to the adopting their socialist policies, many of which they’ve been walking back since the 90s. And they don’t have a “somewhat “ higher tax bracket. Almost everyone gets taxed at about 60%. From the low middle class to the 1%, it’s about 60%. How do you think that’ll go over? Luckily, almost everyone is going to look at the word “free” and think they’re getting a deal.

 

[GastriqueGraffin]

Does anyone expect to change the mind of anyone else on this? We all have our reasons for wanting to believe what we believe and then we find evidence to support that point of view. The objective fact is Bernie is a socialist and that doesn’t change whether or not you support his view.

 

[deleted50478]

Does anyone expect to change the mind of anyone else on this? We all have our reasons for wanting to believe what we believe and then we find evidence to support that point of view. The objective fact is Bernie is a socialist and that doesn’t change whether or not you support his view.

He isn’t a socialist he’s a social democrat capitalist.

 

[GastriqueGraffin]

He isn’t a socialist he’s a social democrat capitalist.

Sigh. I give up.

 

[deleted162650]

He isn’t a socialist he’s a social democrat capitalist.

That’s a pretty big label for a party that doesn’t like labels. The fact that you used the pronoun “he” is reprehensible in and of itself.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

That’s a pretty big label for a party that doesn’t like labels. The fact that you used the pronoun “he” is reprehensible in and of itself.

Bernice Sanders 2020
She will tax the panths off you

 

[deleted171991]

Bernice Sanders 2020
She will tax the panths off you

You forgot "they". I hope you feel ashamed of your intolerance.

 

[deleted50478]

Sigh. I give up.

Definition of SOCIALISM

 

[Stagg737]

I’m not exactly sure why people don’t think Trump will win. I have never met anyone who voted for him who disapproves enough to not vote for him again. There are conservatives who did not vote for him initially (didn’t vote at all) but I think the far left shift of Dems will make them vote. It’s pretty rare for the incumbent to lose.

I've talked to many physicians who voted Trump and said "never again". They had hoped that he would actually abolish the ACA and implement another form of healthcare system and when that became an empty promise they jumped off the Trump Train. I know several other docs and people in general who won't vote for him again for other reasons, most of these people won't vote for any of the leading democrats either (especially not Bernie).

Next election seems to be shaping up to be one of the lamest elections in terms of turnout in history imo.

Bayonets? Really?

The fear-mongering over Bernie Sanders is pretty ridiculous sometimes. He is not a Bolshevik revolutionary calling for people to take up arms. He is not a Communist. He is a progressive style Democrat whose ideas are not radical when you look at them in terms of both past U.S. history and current European/Canadian societies. I honestly just don’t get the fear over Bernie Sanders. People paint this picture of a Che Guevera coming to take your property at gun point.

The biggest knock against Bernie Sanders is it would be just another 4 years of absolute gridlock in Washington. How likely is it that Bernie would be able to get a “Medicare for all” or “70% marginal tax rate on 10 millionaires” through Congress? We have a winner-take-all mentality in our government right that guarantees dysfunction no matter who is president.

I hate to tell you, but these progressive ideas are coming at some point in our lifetime. The people want them, the financial elites don’t.

But they are pretty radical when you look at them in terms of current U.S. social beliefs and political climate over the last 20 years. Idgaf about comparing the U.S. to Canada or Europe because we're not Canada or Europe. I agree with most of your second paragraph though. It's part of why I wasn't afraid of a Bernie win in 2016, because the ability to pull off his plans were so ridiculous they'd never get through congress. He'd have been one of the most ineffective presidents in the last 100 years.

The second bolded point also is semi-true. I think many people want them but completely fail to understand what would be required to actually pull them off and what the long-term effects on the power of our economy would be if they were actually implemented. If Bernie actually won the presidency and managed to implement his ideas, this country would be economically f***ed in the next 10-15 years.

What? Neither of the pools of money are fixed, and both pools contain "other people's money."

In any case, if you don't think it's a problem that one person brings their skills and ideas to a company and gets a 10% raise while the owner makes 10,000% more off their skills and ideas then there's not really any convincing you of anything.

And how much risk is that person who comes to the company taking on? If the company tanks, will the worker be on the hook for the debt and financial ruin of the company? No. They'll lose their job and have to find another one. Part of the reason owners and the exec boards/high end investors get the major profits off of other's work is because they're the ones taking on the risk of failure. If you want to make that worker directly responsible for the risk of failure then I agree with you, they're getting screwed. If the worker has no additional risk of failure other than job security then the people taking on risk deserve higher payoff. Believing otherwise is just a childish sense of entitlement.

Really? My experience in the anti-competitive, exclusive contract, non-compete, bribe, and buyout-driven anesthesia job market pushed me to the left.

Sounds like you need to negotiate your contracts better. Or your field is just screwed because docs sold out to corporations. Idk, isn't an issue in my field.

I would argue that a lot of incoming physicians do come from wealth. Last tome I checked aamc stats, nearly 2/3 of med students don’t have med school loans and at least half come from high earning families. They likely do work hard but they also are more likely to come from wealth

That's actually very incorrect. From 2017 AAMC survey 75% of graduates had educational debt and 72% had educational debt specifically from med school. The mean of those with debt was ~$190k and median was $192k.

Source: https://members.aamc.org/iweb/upload/2017 Debt Fact Card.pdf

That's a good start. The second thing is severely decreasing the number of people per US house rep by increasing the number of house seats. And outlawing gerrymandering. Then we can actually get an idea of what the people truly want.

This is a really interesting point that I hadn't really thought about directly before this. I've been of the opinion that the population volume in the U.S. is a huge problem for a while now, so it makes sense that number of individuals per representative would play a role in that. I think that given the sheer number of people in the U.S., creating a system for anything (education, healthcare, etc) which is successful for all or even most is nearly impossible. Especially given the radically different viewpoints in any topic of much of the populace.

 

[vector2]

And how much risk is that person who comes to the company taking on? If the company tanks, will the worker be on the hook for the debt and financial ruin of the company? No. They'll lose their job and have to find another one. Part of the reason owners and the exec boards/high end investors get the major profits off of other's work is because they're the ones taking on the risk of failure. If you want to make that worker directly responsible for the risk of failure then I agree with you, they're getting screwed. If the worker has no additional risk of failure other than job security then the people taking on risk deserve higher payoff. Believing otherwise is just a childish sense of entitlement.

What's childish is your notion that the C-suite and the board are responsible for "debt and financial ruin" when essentially the whole point of incorporating or forming an LLC is that those individuals are exactly the ones who are not personally responsible. The employees who get terminated (you know, the ones who don't have an angel investor ready to prop up their next stupid venture idea) are the ones who get punished. When Trump started declaring bankruptcy left and right and his stock **** the bed and then was delisted, it definitely wasn't he who shouldered the burden.

Just look at Jeff Immelt. He oversaw GE for 16 years and the stock price essentially peaked at the beginning of his tenure, went sideways, crashed, recovered to under '99/'00 levels even while the rest of the market exploded, and then started crashing again. What did he get for his poor performance? A severance package worth well over $100 million

At the end of the day, yes, creating a business involves a higher level of risk and those at the top do deserve a higher payoff if the business succeeds. But as I said earlier, the average CEO pay used to be 20-30x the average employee's in the 50s-70s. Now it is 200-300x the average employee's. That is a perverse ratio.

 

[Stagg737]

What's childish is your notion that the C-suite and the board are responsible for "debt and financial ruin" when essentially the whole point of incorporating or forming an LLC is that those individuals are exactly the ones who are not personally responsible. The employees who get terminated (you know, the ones who don't have an angel investor ready to prop up their next stupid venture idea) are the ones who get punished. When Trump started declaring bankruptcy left and right and his stock **** the bed and then was delisted, it definitely wasn't he who shouldered the burden.

Just look at Jeff Immelt. He oversaw GE for 16 years and the stock price essentially peaked at the beginning of his tenure, went sideways, crashed, recovered to under '99/'00 levels even while the rest of the market exploded, and then started crashing again. What did he get for his poor performance? A severance package worth well over $100 million

At the end of the day, yes, creating a business involves a higher level of risk and those at the top do deserve a higher payoff if the business succeeds. But as I said earlier, the average CEO pay used to be 20-30x the average employee's in the 50s-70s. Now it is 200-300x the average employee's. That is a perverse ratio.

I don't disagree with most of that. I was largely referring to the basic concepts of who is taking on risk in the general business model of a capitalistic/free market society. Yes, our society has become a system where "too big to fail" and back-door loopholes have allowed those in the upper echelons (at least for large corporations) to minimize their risks or at least negate disastrous failures. Additionally large portions of that risk have been shifted from those sitting on the exec boards to the investors at large (at least for publicly traded companies) like your example above. That does not change the fact that the greater portion of risk to a business does not sit with the individual workers, but with investors or owners (owners especially so with middle to smaller-sized businesses).

The actual ratio of CEO to employee compensation is a separate argument from who holds risk within a given business model and an argument which I think is far more valid point. My argument was simply that there are very good reasons why owners, large investors, and the upper levels within a company make significantly more than the lower and middle level employees which is something that is commonly glossed over or completely ignored in arguments regarding "fair" pay for workers.

 

[deleted50478]

A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
― Milton Friedman


“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
― Milton Friedman

“Once constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future.”
-Thomas Piketty

“You need some inequality to grow... but extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our democratic institutions.”
-Thomas Piketty

 

[vector2]

That does not change the fact that the greater portion of risk to a business does not sit with the individual workers, but with investors or owners (owners especially so with middle to smaller-sized businesses).

As far as medium and small business go, I don't disagree with your reasoning. Most small business owners (especially those who struggled with startup costs) live by the skin of their teeth and deserve to reap an outsized reward if they are successful.

My argument was simply that there are very good reasons why owners, large investors, and the upper levels within a company make significantly more than the lower and middle level employees which is something that is commonly glossed over or completely ignored in arguments regarding "fair" pay for workers.

In regard to the mega corps, once the risk has been significantly reduced, balance sheet deleveraged and manageable, and the company is essentially a free cash flow producing machine, what are the "very good" reasons why the upper echelon should be making 300x more than the worker bees or why the workers shouldn't get some significant form of profit sharing like the stockholders? Don't get me wrong, I love compounding the dividends I get from MCD and WMT, but neither of these companies' C-suites and boards are currently reinventing the wheel by slinging more french fries or selling more imported junk from China. It's become so obscenely ingrained in business culture (and, really, American culture) that the only thing that matters is turning a profit at all costs and then returning the profit to shareholders and the C-suite, that even the mention that maybe MCD could pay a 2% div instead of 4% div and provide healthcare to more of their employees is blasphemous.

 

[Stagg737]

In regard to the mega corps, once the risk has been significantly reduced, balance sheet deleveraged and manageable, and the company is essentially a free cash flow producing machine, what are the "very good" reasons why the upper echelon should be making 300x more than the worker bees or why the workers shouldn't get some significant form of profit sharing like the stockholders? Don't get me wrong, I love compounding the dividends I get from MCD and WMT, but neither of these companies' C-suites and boards are currently reinventing the wheel by slinging more french fries or selling more imported junk from China. It's become so obscenely ingrained in business culture (and, really, American culture) that the only thing that matters is turning a profit at all costs and then returning the profit to shareholders and the C-suite, that even the mention that maybe MCD could pay a 2% div instead of 4% div and provide healthcare to more of their employees is blasphemous.

Mega-corps are a different story, but there are still issues with it. I don't believe the upper echelon needs to or should necessarily make 300x more than the average worker. I won't deny that this phenomenon comes largely from corporate greed and market value of the position (which is outrageous, but so are many aspects of society like why actors and athletes make 7 figures per year while EMTs and teachers often make less than 30k), but this is a separate issue from risk vs. labor.

To the question of "why shouldn't workers get some significant form of profit sharing like the stockholders?": Stockholders get to participate in profit sharing because they are taking on risk through investment. They are literally gambling on the success of the company with the promise that if the company is successful they will be reimbursed appropriately. The incentive for the investment is solely profit sharing. Workers are providing labor at a previously agreed upon rate and being directly compensated for providing labor to the company. If they perform the labor, they get paid (and sometimes they get paid even if they don't provide the labor!). The incentive for their labor is compensation at the agreed upon rate. This is separate from the profit sharing as they are already profiting by exchanging their work for money. There is no monetary risk involved with this so they have no direct guarantee of sharing the profit beyond what they are paid for their work.

You can make the argument that employees should be able to receive part of the profit sharing as is done with "employee owned" companies. However, these models function under the premise that profit-sharing with the employees will somehow benefit the company in the long run. This can work great with small to medium sized companies where employees may have direct or nearly direct access to upper management or whose productivity can have a significant impact on the bottom-line. However, for mega-corps the productivity of a few employees or even hundreds to thousands of lower-level employees does not necessarily impact the bottom line and profit sharing is often purely charitable. The bottom line of every organization, including non-profits, is to make money. Companies cannot exist is they operate at a negative. Yes, there is some responsibility of companies to reimburse people at a fair wage, but that is a very different definition today than it was 40 years ago. Additionally, the workers enter into a contractual agreement in terms of how they will be reimbursed before starting employment. Individuals are free to seek employment elsewhere or create their own jobs if they believe the reimbursement and benefits are not worth their labor.

Your question basically comes down to "what responsibilities towards their employees does a company have?" Some people believe the company itself is responsible for the well-being of their employees in their personal lives and should provide benefits to ensure that well-being. I believe the individual is responsible for their own well-being and that it is their responsibility to negotiate terms of employment with the company. I realize that's a generalized and simplistic view and that this is a multifaceted concept which involves a much broader look into both the current status of various institutions of our society (educational, healthcare, retirement/pension, etc) as well as how these institutions can function with each other. However, at a basic level I believe the individual is responsible for himself or herself and that the first priority of a company is to profit to create further growth and stability of the company, not the personal lives of individuals within the company.

 

[vector2]

Mega-corps are a different story, but there are still issues with it. I don't believe the upper echelon needs to or should necessarily make 300x more than the average worker. I won't deny that this phenomenon comes largely from corporate greed and market value of the position (which is outrageous, but so are many aspects of society like why actors and athletes make 7 figures per year while EMTs and teachers often make less than 30k), but this is a separate issue from risk vs. labor.

To the question of "why shouldn't workers get some significant form of profit sharing like the stockholders?": Stockholders get to participate in profit sharing because they are taking on risk through investment. They are literally gambling on the success of the company with the promise that if the company is successful they will be reimbursed appropriately. The incentive for the investment is solely profit sharing. Workers are providing labor at a previously agreed upon rate and being directly compensated for providing labor to the company. If they perform the labor, they get paid (and sometimes they get paid even if they don't provide the labor!). The incentive for their labor is compensation at the agreed upon rate. This is separate from the profit sharing as they are already profiting by exchanging their work for money. There is no monetary risk involved with this so they have no direct guarantee of sharing the profit beyond what they are paid for their work.

You can make the argument that employees should be able to receive part of the profit sharing as is done with "employee owned" companies. However, these models function under the premise that profit-sharing with the employees will somehow benefit the company in the long run. This can work great with small to medium sized companies where employees may have direct or nearly direct access to upper management or whose productivity can have a significant impact on the bottom-line. However, for mega-corps the productivity of a few employees or even hundreds to thousands of lower-level employees does not necessarily impact the bottom line and profit sharing is often purely charitable. The bottom line of every organization, including non-profits, is to make money. Companies cannot exist is they operate at a negative. Yes, there is some responsibility of companies to reimburse people at a fair wage, but that is a very different definition today than it was 40 years ago. Additionally, the workers enter into a contractual agreement in terms of how they will be reimbursed before starting employment. Individuals are free to seek employment elsewhere or create their own jobs if they believe the reimbursement and benefits are not worth their labor.

Your question basically comes down to "what responsibilities towards their employees does a company have?" Some people believe the company itself is responsible for the well-being of their employees in their personal lives and should provide benefits to ensure that well-being. I believe the individual is responsible for their own well-being and that it is their responsibility to negotiate terms of employment with the company. I realize that's a generalized and simplistic view and that this is a multifaceted concept which involves a much broader look into both the current status of various institutions of our society (educational, healthcare, retirement/pension, etc) as well as how these institutions can function with each other. However, at a basic level I believe the individual is responsible for himself or herself and that the first priority of a company is to profit to create further growth and stability of the company, not the personal lives of individuals within the company.

If your prerogative of business ethics is that the only fiduciary responsibility a company has is to shareholder profits, fine. I think this sort of libertarian, laissez-faire rationale is a misguided pipedream considering how integral the government is to the functioning of the global economy, and how much benefit companies get from government intervention, but everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. As an aside, it's still amazing to me that 2008 is not a case study for 100% of people about the dangers of unchecked regulation, and how massive government intervention into the markets was absolutely necessary to prevent a global meltdown.

The reason I disagree with your perspective is because the companies we are talking about do not merely exist in a vacuum. The collective agreement that is the government, which was created for societal benefit, is ultimately what allows for these companies' very existence. The protection of businesses' land, corporate office, beneficial regulation, tax breaks and loopholes, cheap capital, patent protection, tariff law, and a myriad other things only exist because the people have decided that these companies succeeding has some national economic and societal benefit. Companies wanting to have all the benefits of government only when it suits them is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

In actuality, what we have seen over the past 40 years are C-suites, boards, and shareholders taking the vast, vast majority of these gains while the average worker's wage has not kept up with inflation. We've seen corporate profits expand tremendously without a concomitant rise in employee benefits. Union power has been totally hollowed out. Ultimately, the top of the corporate ladder and investor class is taking a vastly outsized proportion of the profits in relation to the risk they've assumed (given over the long term, even with significant volatility, that the average total return of the stock market is 7% per annum and one of the greatest wealth creators in history, it's obscene that the top 10% of households own 84% of the value of the stock market).

You can espouse all you want that "the individual is responsible for him or herself," but it is the taxpayer who ends of footing the bill. A large number of people still rely on the earned income tax credit because their income doesnt cover living expenses, and 60% of medicaid recipients are full-time or part-time workers- why is the tax payer subsidizing the bottom lines of companies who do not take care of their employees? In my opinion, if these companies want to continue receiving the benefits of government, they can either provide better wages and more benefits, or they can get behind a legislated tax raise which ensures nationally that everyone has basic access to food, education, and healthcare.

 

[DM27]

You can espouse all you want that "the individual is responsible for him or herself," but it is the taxpayer who ends of footing the bill. A large number of people still rely on the earned income tax credit because their income doesnt cover living expenses, and 60% of medicaid recipients are full-time or part-time workers- why is the tax payer subsidizing the bottom lines of companies who do not take care of their employees? In my opinion, if these companies want to continue receiving the benefits of government, they can either provide better wages and more benefits, or they can get behind a legislated tax raise which ensures nationally that everyone has basic access to food, education, and healthcare.

This is especially relevant. The idea that the individual is responsible for him/herself is a somewhat naive bootstrapping concept. We have a number of industries that we rely on that simply aren't profitable and exist almost entirely because of government subsidies that either isolate them from competition or artificially bolster them. Individuals need to staff these industries in order for them to actually function, and generally it results in people who are barely breaking even because even with some exorbitant subsidies there is not much profit to be had for the individual operator.

Here are some examples, agriculture is generally the producer of most of these.

The U.S. spends $4 billion a year subsidizing ‘Stalinist-style’ domestic sugar production

U.S. Sugar Program - Wikipedia

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20080401_RS22131_007e9bf82bf73a2906259811137709d5d3d4315f.pdf

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

What Are the Major Federal Government Subsidies?

Some of these things are just facts of life. We like to believe we are a purely capitalist country, but we have a significant amount of government intervention to incentive certain industries and make others artificially profitable. Most companies decry government intervention and support until they are ones being competed against or become the victim of the market, and then they become more than willing to accept any form of handout.

 

[nimbus]

This is especially relevant. The idea that the individual is responsible for him/herself is a somewhat naive bootstrapping concept. We have a number of industries that we rely on that simply aren't profitable and exist almost entirely because of government subsidies that either isolate them from competition or artificially bolster them. Individuals need to staff these industries in order for them to actually function, and generally it results in people who are barely breaking even because even with some exorbitant subsidies there is not much profit to be had for the individual operator.

Here are some examples, agriculture is generally the producer of most of these.

The U.S. spends $4 billion a year subsidizing ‘Stalinist-style’ domestic sugar production

U.S. Sugar Program - Wikipedia

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20080401_RS22131_007e9bf82bf73a2906259811137709d5d3d4315f.pdf

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

What Are the Major Federal Government Subsidies?

Some of these things are just facts of life. We like to believe we are a purely capitalist country, but we have a significant amount of government intervention to incentive certain industries and make others artificially profitable. Most companies decry government intervention and support until they are ones being competed against or become the victim of the market, and then they become more than willing to accept any form of handout.

Agree. We are all accepting government handouts when we receive Medicare payments on behalf of our poor(or rich) elderly patients.

 

[Stagg737]

The reason I disagree with your perspective is because the companies we are talking about do not merely exist in a vacuum. The collective agreement that is the government, which was created for societal benefit, is ultimately what allows for these companies' very existence. The protection of businesses' land, corporate office, beneficial regulation, tax breaks and loopholes, cheap capital, patent protection, tariff law, and a myriad other things only exist because the people have decided that these companies succeeding has some national economic and societal benefit. Companies wanting to have all the benefits of government only when it suits them is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I agree with you point about not being in the vacuum, which is why I said "I realize that's a generalized and simplistic view and that this is a multifaceted concept which involves a much broader look into both the current status of various institutions of our society (educational, healthcare, retirement/pension, etc) as well as how these institutions can function with each other." I agree that it's hypocritical and I personally disagree with many of the protections and benefits like tax breaks and loopholes that are available to those corporations. I hate the idea of "too big to fail", ideally competition would prevent companies from becoming megacorps which require bailouts to prevent economic collapse. As I said though, that's an idealistic thought.

In actuality, what we have seen over the past 40 years are C-suites, boards, and shareholders taking the vast, vast majority of these gains while the average worker's wage has not kept up with inflation. We've seen corporate profits expand tremendously without a concomitant rise in employee benefits. Union power has been totally hollowed out. Ultimately, the top of the corporate ladder and investor class is taking a vastly outsized proportion of the profits in relation to the risk they've assumed (given over the long term, even with significant volatility, that the average total return of the stock market is 7% per annum and one of the greatest wealth creators in history, it's obscene that the top 10% of households own 84% of the value of the stock market).

I don't disagree with most of this. The rate of fair wages for employees has not kept up with general inflation. I do not think this is the fault of corporations though, as even if you took all excess profits and put that towards employees it would not keep up with the inflation rates we have seen in most industries (especially education). The only other comment I would add is that unions in the US have been completely bastardized from what they were meant to be. I've listened to a few talks on unions by some world-class economists (I can't remember their names, will try and look them up later) comparing workers unions in the US (which have a very us vs. them attitude in regards to workers vs. the companies) to those in Europe (which strive for workers rights while keeping consideration of the health of the employing companies) and they have completely different functional roles.

In my opinion, if these companies want to continue receiving the benefits of government, they can either provide better wages and more benefits, or they can get behind a legislated tax raise which ensures nationally that everyone has basic access to food, education, and healthcare.

ORRRRRRR we can stop providing excessive amounts of benefits to these large corporations.

We have a number of industries that we rely on that simply aren't profitable and exist almost entirely because of government subsidies that either isolate them from competition or artificially bolster them. Individuals need to staff these industries in order for them to actually function, and generally it results in people who are barely breaking even because even with some exorbitant subsidies there is not much profit to be had for the individual operator.

And for a select few industries (agriculture, water, some aspects of healthcare) I don't have a problem with the gov stepping in and providing aid to prevent those industries from collapsing. These are the industries which provide the basic resources for humans to literally survive. For the vast majority of industries this is not true though.

Agree. We are all accepting government handouts when we receive Medicare payments on behalf of our poor(or rich) elderly patients.

Lol, no. We are accepting payment from a third party in exchange for a service we are providing. That is not a handout, it's an exchange of goods/services.

 

[vector2]

I agree with you point about not being in the vacuum, which is why I said "I realize that's a generalized and simplistic view and that this is a multifaceted concept which involves a much broader look into both the current status of various institutions of our society (educational, healthcare, retirement/pension, etc) as well as how these institutions can function with each other." I agree that it's hypocritical and I personally disagree with many of the protections and benefits like tax breaks and loopholes that are available to those corporations. I hate the idea of "too big to fail", ideally competition would prevent companies from becoming megacorps which require bailouts to prevent economic collapse. As I said though, that's an idealistic thought.

Agreed, the idea of perfect competition to sort out market inequalities is a theoretical economic construct that never pans out in the real world. Some kind of third party all-powerful arbiter (aka the govt) is always needed. Large banks in 2008 had plenty of competition both domestically and internationally. Lack of competition was not the issue- it was lack of regulation that allowed these banks to take a bunch of high risk securities, bundle them, and then leverage them bigly without the collateral to cover a loss....that was the issue. Indeed, I have no problem with corporations becoming wildly successful. I do have a problem that Walmart can become a $300b company by selling cheap foreign wares and still have employees who need 2nd jobs and govt benefits.

I do not think this is the fault of corporations though, as even if you took all excess profits and put that towards employees it would not keep up with the inflation rates we have seen in most industries (especially education).

This is patently false. US corporate profit last year was about $2.0-2.2 trillion per quarter. There are about 150 million or so working people in the US, even fewer if we're excluding people who are employed by the government and not private/public corporations. You can do the math.

ORRRRRRR we can stop providing excessive amounts of benefits to these large corporations.

Why not just let them keep the benefits that make them competitive both domestically and internationally but just make sure they have fair labor negotiations and provide adequate wages and benefits? Govt says to company X: we'll take care of you if you take care of your workers (so the taxpayer doesnt have to). As others have pointed out, so many industries are barely viable without government intervention, and surely taking away all corporate welfare would have a net negative economic effect on every industry.

Lol, no. We are accepting payment from a third party in exchange for a service we are providing. That is not a handout, it's an exchange of goods/services.

Yes, we are. Since medicare is not funded entirely by the payroll tax that the individual recipient contributed, it is essentially a handout to the recipient (which I support)- we are just once removed from the initial transaction. If we took your logic to its natural conclusion, it would be like a Chevy dealer selling a Silverado to a guy who he knows is buying with stolen money, and then the dealer saying that there was no theft or fraud involved, it was just an exchange of good/services.

 

[nimbus]

Lol, no. We are accepting payment from a third party in exchange for a service we are providing. That is not a handout, it's an exchange of goods/services.

The dairy farmers are telling themselves the same thing when they’re producing all that government cheese.

 

[Stagg737]

This is patently false. US corporate profit last year was about $2.0-2.2 trillion per quarter. There are about 150 million or so working people in the US, even fewer if we're excluding people who are employed by the government and not private/public corporations. You can do the math.

This is meaningless without context. Is this gross or net? Before or after taxes, dividends, and R&D? What portion of this is from companies who typically pay min wage or near min wage to a large percent of their employees?

I'm not going to do the math for a statement with no context that makes sweeping assumptions. I'm not a politician.

Why not just let them keep the benefits that make them competitive both domestically and internationally but just make sure they have fair labor negotiations and provide adequate wages and benefits? Govt says to company X: we'll take care of you if you take care of your workers (so the taxpayer doesnt have to). As others have pointed out, so many industries are barely viable without government intervention, and surely taking away all corporate welfare would have a net negative economic effect on every industry.

That's certainly an option, I'm just not of the opinion that creating more regulations to regulate the regulations are really the best option. I also am not particularly fond of further intertwining the private and public sectors and would like to keep government out of the private sector as much as I'd like to keep the private sector from having influence in the public sector (for most things).

Yes, we are. Since medicare is not funded entirely by the payroll tax that the individual recipient contributed, it is essentially a handout to the recipient (which I support)- we are just once removed from the initial transaction. If we took your logic to its natural conclusion, it would be like a Chevy dealer selling a Silverado to a guy who he knows is buying with stolen money, and then the dealer saying that there was no theft or fraud involved, it was just an exchange of good/services.

This is utter nonsense, especially your Chevy analogy. The government has their Medicare/caid fund which is used to pay for patient's health needs. The gov directly pays physicians, the patient never gets the money first. If you want to call the the patient receiving care a handout then I guess I wouldn't argue that. If you're arguing that physicians are taking a handout, then no. We're not.

 

[vector2]

This is meaningless without context. Is this gross or net? Before or after taxes, dividends, and R&D? What portion of this is from companies who typically pay min wage or near min wage to a large percent of their employees?

I'm not going to do the math for a statement with no context that makes sweeping assumptions. I'm not a politician.

You previously made a statement saying that "even if you took all excess profits and put that towards employees it would not keep up with the inflation rates we have seen in most industries (especially education)." Where did you get your data from and what was the context of your statement?

My figure of ~$2 trillion comes from the StL fed economic research branch and is the "Corporate Profits After Tax with Inventory Valuation Adjustment (IVA) and Capital Consumption Adjustment (CCAdj)" figure Corporate Profits After Tax with Inventory Valuation Adjustment (IVA) and Capital Consumption Adjustment (CCAdj)

Even without knowing all the extra balance sheet minutiae that you want (and barring the feasibility of actually implementing such a thought experiment), your original statement that taking all the excess profit and giving it to employees wouldn't help them with inflation seems false. Most wage workers have had pay increases that keep their wages slightly under or about at inflationary levels. Even a small portion of that ~2 trillion going back to employees would put them over the line.

That's certainly an option, I'm just not of the opinion that creating more regulations to regulate the regulations are really the best option. I also am not particularly fond of further intertwining the private and public sectors and would like to keep government out of the private sector as much as I'd like to keep the private sector from having influence in the public sector (for most things).

Fair enough. Contrary to the beliefs of many, Scandinavian countries actually have pretty low corporate tax rates in line with much of the OECD. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are all between 22-27%, well below the US's nominal (before all the loopholes etc) rate of 39%. This is easier for them to do because individuals from all wage brackets pay high marginal rates, high capital gains, and a VAT, therefore corporations are not punished and those countries appear very attractive to multinationals who want to set up shop there. We have a backward system where we pay relatively low individual taxes compared to other first world countries while simultaneously having low corporate taxes (with the loopholes). Combined with the idiocy of having our retirement and healthcare linked almost solely to our employers, we now have a piecemeal, complicated, poorly-funded network of federal and state programs to provide social support for some but not others. If you actually care about the inequality of the current "CEO gets 300x the average workers" and "working people still requiring medicaid" kind of system, and you want to keep the public sector out of the private sector, the best thing to do is raise taxes and create nationally administered programs, and let corporations go about their business with a low corporate tax rate.

This is utter nonsense, especially your Chevy analogy. The government has their Medicare/caid fund which is used to pay for patient's health needs. The gov directly pays physicians, the patient never gets the money first. If you want to call the the patient receiving care a handout then I guess I wouldn't argue that. If you're arguing that physicians are taking a handout, then no. We're not.

Actually to be perfectly accurate, CMS contracts with private insurance companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers to administer Part A and Part B benefits. But regardless, the point I'm making is that you the physician not directly taking the "handout" or being one step removed from the "handout" (or in my analogy, the theft) does not negate the moral implication of participating in the handout or a theft. To paraphrase my crazier libertarian Friedman fan acquaintances, they believe that government benefits received without one having previously contributed the corresponding tax dollars is "amoral theft."

Say you're a PCP in Boca Raton and your practice is almost 95% medicare, your livelihood simply doesn't exist without patients (medicare) paying you using other people's money. If our Boca PCP can't make his living with hardworking privately insured patients, then he is indirectly contributing to the "amoral theft" that is occurring. A libertarian might say a principled stance against such tyranny would be to refuse medicare/medicaid patients and explicitly express one's disapproval of one's tax dollars going to pay for another's healthcare.

 

[Stagg737]

You previously made a statement saying that "even if you took all excess profits and put that towards employees it would not keep up with the inflation rates we have seen in most industries (especially education)." Where did you get your data from and what was the context of your statement?

Context probably should have been clarified. I was referring to the idea that if you take net earnings for a single large company (let's say McD's) and re-distribute that to lower level workers within that company it's not going to make a significant difference in the payment of those employees. For example, in 2017 McD's had a net profit of ~$5.2 billion for US locations (per Nasdaq data) and ~2 million US workers. If you take all of that net earning and divide it among all the workers it would give them an extra $2,600 per year each. Not terrible, but certainly not enough to pull them out of poverty. Convert that $2,600 to hourly rates and you're talking about a little over $1 dollar/hr increase in pay rates. Not much, especially compared to the demanded raises that many minimum wage employees have protested over. Obviously this would vary from company to company, but I had done it with a few in the past and when you break it down to individual companies the difference is far less significant.

To bring it full circle to the thread topic, such a minimal increase in wages would be unacceptable to Bernie and his supporters, and that's assuming you're giving ALL net profits back to employees. Additionally, Bernie proposes increasing corporate taxes while simultaneously saying employees should receive more benefits in addition to the gov providing more resources. In a system of finite resources, his ideas are not implementable at best and plain delusional at worst.

Actually to be perfectly accurate, CMS contracts with private insurance companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers to administer Part A and Part B benefits. But regardless, the point I'm making is that you the physician not directly taking the "handout" or being one step removed from the "handout" (or in my analogy, the theft) does not negate the moral implication of participating in the handout or a theft. To paraphrase my crazier libertarian Friedman fan acquaintances, they believe that government benefits received without one having previously contributed the corresponding tax dollars is "amoral theft."

I think we're talking past each other on this one. I was saying that the physician is not taking a handout as they are receiving payment for a service (though through several intermediaries). I'm also not implying that medicare/caid as a "handout" is theft and never did, so not sure where that came from.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The Democrats have moved too far left. Only Biden is mainstream.

But, with this current group of leftists even Bernie is just in the middle of the pack.

Trump is an idiot but he is a democrat turned republican. Trump is in his 70s and most of his true beliefs are very moderate. He is my least favorite Republican President during my lifetime. But, I’d vote for him over Bernie or Harris.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[GastriqueGraffin]

The Democrats have moved too far left. Only Biden is mainstream.

But, with this current group of leftists even Bernie is just in the middle of the pack.

Trump is an idiot but he is a democrat turned republican. Trump is in his 70s and most of his true beliefs are very moderate. He is my least favorite Republican President during my lifetime. But, I’d vote for him over Bernie or Harris.

Is Trump your least favorite because of personality or policy?

 

[vector2]

Context probably should have been clarified. I was referring to the idea that if you take net earnings for a single large company (let's say McD's) and re-distribute that to lower level workers within that company it's not going to make a significant difference in the payment of those employees. For example, in 2017 McD's had a net profit of ~$5.2 billion for US locations (per Nasdaq data) and ~2 million US workers. If you take all of that net earning and divide it among all the workers it would give them an extra $2,600 per year each. Not terrible, but certainly not enough to pull them out of poverty. Convert that $2,600 to hourly rates and you're talking about a little over $1 dollar/hr increase in pay rates. Not much, especially compared to the demanded raises that many minimum wage employees have protested over. Obviously this would vary from company to company, but I had done it with a few in the past and when you break it down to individual companies the difference is far less significant.

Your point is taken in regard to MCD, but as you acknowledged, it does vary significantly from company to company. MCD is good for making your point because it's a very cutthroat, razor thin margin, volume-based company which relies heavily on a franchise model (the number of employees employed by corporate is somewhere around 375,000). If we look at Boeing, for example, they posted 10 billion in net income for 150,000 employees. Fully distributed would be 66k per employee per year. Even if we looked at the entire list of companies in the US stock market, we are still only talking about publicly traded companies. There's a myriad of large private companies (Cargill, Koch, Mars Candy) in addition to medium and small biz which also need to be considered. That's why it makes more sense to look at the total US corporate profit data ($8T/yr), and based on that data the average worker would be getting a lot more than $2,600 a year.

To bring it full circle to the thread topic, such a minimal increase in wages would be unacceptable to Bernie and his supporters, and that's assuming you're giving ALL net profits back to employees. Additionally, Bernie proposes increasing corporate taxes while simultaneously saying employees should receive more benefits in addition to the gov providing more resources. In a system of finite resources, his ideas are not implementable at best and plain delusional at worst.

Politicians say a lot of things. They especially say a lot of outlandish things during primary season when trying to rile up their base. There's a reason most people aren't surprised that we aren't really building a wall at the moment and that even if we were, Mexico certainly wouldn't be paying for it.

If you look at what Bernie has actually proposed and not what Fox News says he's proposed, it involves basically the following: raising the federal minimum wage to $15 over the course of about 5 years or so, increasing cap gains tax, removing certain subsidies and deductions for highly profitable corps, creating additional higher marginal tax bracket which will be somewhere north of about 50%, increasing the estate tax rate, and recovering some of the $2.1 trillion being held overseas in tax havens. I'm sure this all sounds radical to a lot of people here. To the average joe schmoe making 55k a year, not so much.

I think we're talking past each other on this one. I was saying that the physician is not taking a handout as they are receiving payment for a service (though through several intermediaries). I'm also not implying that medicare/caid as a "handout" is theft and never did, so not sure where that came from.

Yes, you are correct in saying that the physician is not literally taking a handout by accepting a medicare payment. And as I've been repeatedly trying to argue, this is beside the point when considering the broader context of where this payment comes from (hint: the money comprising the payment wasn't "earned" by the patient you're treating).

To avoid talking to circles, let me ask: why don't you consider medicare/caid to be a handout or theft? You've made it clear throughout the thread that corporate responsibility is a distinct entity from caring for its employees, and that individuals are responsible for their own well-being. How does this view of yours jive with the fact that medicare as a government benefit is an unfunded liability (i.e. the current recipients are getting more dollars in benefits from the current taxpayer than the current recipient ever contributed, even inflation adjusted)? Why isn't medicare a handout when you (the taxpayer) are footing the bill for someone who couldn't take enough responsibility during his working years to save enough for his retirement and medical expenses? In what world is it even conceivably not a handout when I'm sitting there nodding my head in the SICU as the family member tells me to press on full steam ahead with intubation, central line, a-line, and a weeklong course of pressors and CRRT for their 87 year old nearly braindead septic grandfather with multisystem organ failure?

 

[pgg]

Context probably should have been clarified. I was referring to the idea that if you take net earnings for a single large company (let's say McD's) and re-distribute that to lower level workers within that company it's not going to make a significant difference in the payment of those employees. For example, in 2017 McD's had a net profit of ~$5.2 billion for US locations (per Nasdaq data) and ~2 million US workers. If you take all of that net earning and divide it among all the workers it would give them an extra $2,600 per year each. Not terrible, but certainly not enough to pull them out of poverty. Convert that $2,600 to hourly rates and you're talking about a little over $1 dollar/hr increase in pay rates. Not much, especially compared to the demanded raises that many minimum wage employees have protested over. Obviously this would vary from company to company, but I had done it with a few in the past and when you break it down to individual companies the difference is far less significant.

We could try Walmart instead of McDonalds ...

Walmart's annual profit the last couple of years has been around $125 billion. Wikipedia says they have 2.3 million employees. That's $54,000 of profit per employee. It's hard to argue that they can't pay their workers something that keeps them off public assistance, or that they can't provide health insurance to all of them.

 

[vector2]

Trump is an idiot .

This is the president. (the other guy trying to tactfully correct him is Bob Lighthizer, US trade rep)

 

[Stagg737]

Your point is taken in regard to MCD, but as you acknowledged, it does vary significantly from company to company. MCD is good for making your point because it's a very cutthroat, razor thin margin, volume-based company which relies heavily on a franchise model (the number of employees employed by corporate is somewhere around 375,000). If we look at Boeing, for example, they posted 10 billion in net income for 150,000 employees. Fully distributed would be 66k per employee per year. Even if we looked at the entire list of companies in the US stock market, we are still only talking about publicly traded companies. There's a myriad of large private companies (Cargill, Koch, Mars Candy) in addition to medium and small biz which also need to be considered. That's why it makes more sense to look at the total US corporate profit data, and based on that data the average worker would be getting a lot more than $2,600 a year.

And for some companies that's certainly true. Creating a blanket policy which will force all companies to provide the same benefits based on certain aspects of the company profile (like number of employees) without looking at the total picture doesn't tend to work so great. Just ask the thousands of "medium" sized businesses that were ~60-70 employees that were suddenly forced to provide employee health benefits after the ACA passed. I understand your point, I just disagree that more regulations to help regulate regulations in the name of good intentions is the appropriate move.

If you look at what Bernie has actually proposed at not what Fox News says he's proposed, it involves basically the following: raising the federal minimum wage to $15 over the course of about 5 years or so, increasing cap gains tax, removing certain subsidies and deductions for highly profitable corps, creating additional higher marginal tax bracket which will be somewhere north of about 50%, increasing the estate tax rate, and recovering some of the $2.1 trillion being held overseas in tax havens. I'm sure this all sounds radical to a lot of people here. To the average joe schmoe making 55k a year, not so much.

I haven't looked at his proposals recently, but I did look at them extensively in 2016 and they were awful and unrealistic to anyone with logic based in reality and basic math skills. To be clear, I like Bernie. I think he's probably a good guy with the best intentions and I think he genuinely wants to help this country. From that perspective I have a lot of respect for him. I also don't disagree with every one of his previously proposed plans. I do live in reality though and don't believe that any of his plans would actually work if they were implemented as they had been written.

Yes, you are correct in saying that the physician is not literally taking a handout by accepting a medicare payment. And as I've been repeatedly trying to argue, this is beside the point when considering the broader context of where this payment comes from. To avoid talking to circles, let me ask: why don't you consider medicare/caid to be a handout or theft? You've made it clear throughout the thread that corporate responsibility is a distinct entity from caring for its employees, and that individuals are responsible for their own well-being. How does this view of yours jive with the fact that medicare as a government benefit is an unfunded liability (i.e. the current recipients are getting more dollars in benefits from the current taxpayer than the current recipient ever contributed, even inflation adjusted)? Why isn't medicare a handout when you (the taxpayer) are footing the bill for someone who couldn't take enough responsibility during his working years to save enough for his retirement and medical expenses?

Why are you assuming that I think a handout and theft are the same thing? I think Medicare/caid is a government handout, just one that most people have paid into for the duration of their life. I don't consider it theft though and I'm not sure where you got that idea. Frankly, I'm not a fan of medicare the way it's currently operated, but it largely comes back to Americans have unrealistic expectations for their healthcare and a desperate need to "do everything possible" to save people, even the elderly, in futile situations.

We could try Walmart instead of McDonalds ...

Walmart's annual profit the last couple of years has been around $125 billion. Wikipedia says they have 2.3 million employees. That's $54,000 of profit per employee. It's hard to argue that they can't pay their workers something that keeps them off public assistance, or that they can't provide health insurance to all of them.

As I said above, it will vary from company to company. There is no one-size-fits-all policy and sometimes the problem simply comes back to corporate greed. I'll also add that just because I don't think a company has a responsibility to provide a ton of benefits to employees doesn't mean providing those benefits isn't the right thing to do. Example, if i see someone fall down I have no responsibility to help them up, but doing so would still be the right thing to do.

This is the president. (the other guy trying to tactfully correct him is Bob Lighthizer, US trade rep)

Uh, an MoU is a non-binding agreement of terms between two parties and is typically not a legally enforceable document in the US and is highly variable for international diplomacy. So Trump is technically correct...

 

[vector2]

And for some companies that's certainly true. Creating a blanket policy which will force all companies to provide the same benefits based on certain aspects of the company profile (like number of employees) without looking at the total picture doesn't tend to work so great. Just ask the thousands of "medium" sized businesses that were ~60-70 employees that were suddenly forced to provide employee health benefits after the ACA passed. I understand your point, I just disagree that more regulations to help regulate regulations in the name of good intentions is the appropriate move.

Corporations, on average, have proven unwilling but not unable to increase wages or benefits in reasonable manner. I don't know if it has to be some kind of rigid, blanket, one-size-fits-all benefits policy, but certainly picking some small portion of excess cash to return to employees is an easy place to start. Regardless, you've honestly just pointed out the best argument for a socialized healthcare and benefits system. It is incredibly complicated and inefficient to try to figure out exactly which sized businesses with what profit margin can afford to provide what kind of benefits and to whom. Instead of going back and forth about regulating the regulations, what we should be doing is talking about the ACA's biggest omission: the failure to decouple healthcare from employment. Every other first world country but us has realized that a basic national healthcare system is more efficient, lower cost, and frees up companies to make better business/HR decisions, especially those companies like MCD which rely on lower-income workers. If there were some kind of universal basic healthcare, we would no longer have to worry whether the threshold for a business being mandated to provide health insurance is 40, 50, 60. 70, or 7000 employees.

I haven't looked at his proposals recently, but I did look at them extensively in 2016 and they were awful and unrealistic to anyone with logic based in reality and basic math skills. To be clear, I like Bernie. I think he's probably a good guy with the best intentions and I think he genuinely wants to help this country. From that perspective I have a lot of respect for him. I also don't disagree with every one of his previously proposed plans. I do live in reality though and don't believe that any of his plans would actually work if they were implemented as they had been written.

If you are interested in seeing what he's actually proposed vis a vis economics policy: Bernie Sanders on Economic Inequality

Why are you assuming that I think a handout and theft are the same thing? I think Medicare/caid is a government handout, just one that most people have paid into for the duration of their life. I don't consider it theft though and I'm not sure where you got that idea. Frankly, I'm not a fan of medicare the way it's currently operated, but it largely comes back to Americans have unrealistic expectations for their healthcare and a desperate need to "do everything possible" to save people, even the elderly, in futile situations.

I was making a rhetorical point with the way I've heard certain libertarians talk. I'm not projecting their words specifically onto your viewpoint when I was talking about "amoral theft" cause honestly it seems like your view on individual responsibility is a little all over the place. I mean, you acknowledge medicare is a government handout, but it's an OK handout because people have paid into it most of their life, even if they're getting out of it much more than they ever put in? Again, where are these seniors' individual responsibility in as far as taking out of the system exactly what they put in and then paying for the rest with their own savings? If government handouts are undesirable policy in your opinion, and you don't like the way medicare is operated, it presumably seems unethical on some level to continue letting people pay for your services with their government handouts. Brings to mind the Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

As I said above, it will vary from company to company. There is no one-size-fits-all policy and sometimes the problem simply comes back to corporate greed. I'll also add that just because I don't think a company has a responsibility to provide a ton of benefits to employees doesn't mean providing those benefits isn't the right thing to do. Example, if i see someone fall down I have no responsibility to help them up, but doing so would still be the right thing to do.

Government regulation exists because we can count on corporations (or human beings for that matter) "doing the right thing" about 0% of the time.

Uh, an MoU is a non-binding agreement of terms between two parties and is typically not a legally enforceable document in the US and is highly variable for international diplomacy. So Trump is technically correct...

LOL, please. Lighthizer and his negotiating team had been working on 6 legally binding international MOUs with the Chinese (forced technology transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture, and non-tariff barriers to trade) as this was the agreed upon framework of the negotiation. Trump, like a confused child wandering into the middle of a conversation, says he doesn't like MOUs, and Lighthizer placates the child by saying we'll just go ahead and change the name, while continuing to work on exactly the same documents they were working on before.

 

[Stagg737]

If you are interested in seeing what he's actually proposed vis a vis economics policy: Bernie Sanders on Economic Inequality

I'll read through this later, but just skimming I can already tell that I don't like his plans. A Tobin Tax is his solution to "dealing with Wall Street"? And his opinions on social security are laughable. Raising the age to 69 would be "disastrous"? He must have been high when he wrote that opinion, or he's just delusional like I stated earlier.

I was making a rhetorical point with the way I've heard certain libertarians talk. I'm not projecting their words specifically onto your viewpoint when I was talking about "amoral theft" cause honestly it seems like your view on individual responsibility is a little all over the place. I mean, you acknowledge medicare is a government handout, but it's an OK handout because people have paid into it most of their life, even if they're getting out of it much more than they ever put in? Again, where are these seniors' individual responsibility in as far as taking out of the system exactly what they put in and then paying for the rest with their own savings? If government handouts are undesirable policy in your opinion, and you don't like the way medicare is operated, it presumably seems unethical on some level to continue letting people pay for your services with their government handouts. Brings to mind the Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not completely against a universal system or welfare programs. Those policies are not mutually exclusive from expecting individuals to be personally responsible for themselves. However, in the US it is painfully obvious how individuals behave when they become part of these programs. The VA system is essentially a single-payer microcosm in the US and it is a legitimate disaster. So we're supposed to trust that the US gov, which can't even run an effective system only for its veterans is supposed to successfully run a universal system for the entire country? Are you daft or do you just have no experience with the US's already (terribly) implemented universal system?

Also, I don't "let people pay for my services with their government handouts". For now I'm forced to because I'm a resident, but after residency I do not plan on accepting Medicare (as I do not plan on treating seniors) and may very well not accept Medicaid. So your little jab there is a moot point.

LOL, please. Lighthizer and his negotiating team had been working on 6 legally binding international MOUs with the Chinese (forced technology transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture, and non-tariff barriers to trade) as this was the agreed upon framework of the negotiation. Trump, like a confused child wandering into the middle of a conversation, says he doesn't like MOUs, and Lighthizer placates the child by saying we'll just go ahead and change the name, while continuing to work on exactly the same documents they were working on before.

Did you read what I wrote? Did you read the article you posted? Because nothing in that article refutes what I said. Like I said, they're typically non-binding and in some international contexts may be legally binding but not always. While some of these MoUs seem to be legally binding your source even states "China might claim it is not legally bound by the MoU (like the US has claimed in those contexts)." So even when legally binding they may not be legally binding. Sounds rock solid to me...

 

[BLADEMDA]

Our govt. today in the USA does need revamping. Too much govt. in some areas and probably not enough safety net for healthcare. What we have is a lot of crony capitalism going on and the tax code is a prime example of favorable treatment for certain groups over others.

But, the answer is not always more govt. taxation and regulation. Sometimes all one has to do is allow the free market to work.

Both parties act irresponsibly when it comes time to govern. The national debt is a disgrace and a burden to those not yet born. The military budget is through the roof with massive expansion of social programs on the way if the Dems win in 2020. Meanwhile the trillions in debt keep piling up.

 

[deleted480308]

We could try Walmart instead of McDonalds ...

Walmart's annual profit the last couple of years has been around $125 billion. Wikipedia says they have 2.3 million employees. That's $54,000 of profit per employee. It's hard to argue that they can't pay their workers something that keeps them off public assistance, or that they can't provide health insurance to all of them.

it's also hard to argue that anyone has a right to demand that just because they have a job. Presence of profit doesn't at all mean the employee has a right to it.

And walmart not offering it doesn't create an obligation to the general public. We don't owe walmart employees anything

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Your point is taken in regard to MCD, but as you acknowledged, it does vary significantly from company to company. MCD is good for making your point because it's a very cutthroat, razor thin margin, volume-based company which relies heavily on a franchise model (the number of employees employed by corporate is somewhere around 375,000). If we look at Boeing, for example, they posted 10 billion in net income for 150,000 employees. Fully distributed would be 66k per employee per year. Even if we looked at the entire list of companies in the US stock market, we are still only talking about publicly traded companies. There's a myriad of large private companies (Cargill, Koch, Mars Candy) in addition to medium and small biz which also need to be considered. That's why it makes more sense to look at the total US corporate profit data ($8T/yr), and based on that data the average worker would be getting a lot more than $2,600 a year.

Here's the thing though - Boeing already pays very very well. Their intro-level jobs with no experience where they train you in what they want you to do range from $20-35/hr.

Same thing with BMW (can you tell I'm from South Carolina?) - a job right out of high school pays $16.50/hr, paid holidays, retirement, and insurance. I see a lot of these folks in my office, their insurance is top notch.

So yes, they both absolutely could pay their workers more. But they already pay them pretty well (and offer great benefits), so why should they have to pay them more?

 

[deleted50478]

Here's the thing though - Boeing already pays very very well. Their intro-level jobs with no experience where they train you in what they want you to do range from $20-35/hr.

Same thing with BMW (can you tell I'm from South Carolina?) - a job right out of high school pays $16.50/hr, paid holidays, retirement, and insurance. I see a lot of these folks in my office, their insurance is top notch.

So yes, they both absolutely could pay their workers more. But they already pay them pretty well (and offer great benefits), so why should they have to pay them more?

You’ll never convince executives to pay the employees more. What you do instead is have a very high tax rate for people making over $5,000,000 per year and a very very high tax rate for people making $10,000,000. You tax extraordinarily high incomes so much that it isn’t worth it to the corporation to pay them that much. If they want to spend the money currently wasted on executives to raise wages, increase R&D, buy back stock, raise dividends, etc, it’s up to them, but any alternative is preferable to extraordinary executive pay.
I mean don’t feel sorry for them. They’ll still get $5,000,000 per year.

 

[deleted480308]

You’ll never convince executives to pay the employees more. What you do instead is have a very high tax rate for people making over $5,000,000 per year and a very very high tax rate for people making $10,000,000. You tax extraordinarily high incomes so much that it isn’t worth it to the corporation to pay them that much. If they want to spend the money currently wasted on executives to raise wages, increase R&D, buy back stock, raise dividends, etc, it’s up to them, but any alternative is preferable to extraordinary executive pay.
I mean don’t feel sorry for them. They’ll still get $10,000,000 per year.

it shouldn't be a goal for the govt to "convince" anyone to pay anyone more. The company should offer what it takes to get the employees they want, and when an acceptable offer is made the employees show up to work.

 

[deleted50478]

it shouldn't be a goal for the govt to "convince" anyone to pay anyone more. The company should offer what it takes to get the employees they want, and when an acceptable offer is made the employees show up to work.

The companies can do what they want with the savings, or they can pay the ceo $50,000,000 and have him pay $35,000,000 in taxes if they want.

I don’t think you can make a valid argument in favor of extreme wealth disparity in this country. You don’t want government to be overly involved and interfering with the market, which is clearly more efficient than a control economy. What the government CAN do is take away the incentive for corporations to worsen the wealth disparity by adding higher tax brackets. They shouldn’t tax people so much that it disincentivizes risk-taking, but we are nowhere near that level of taxation at the high end.
US CEOs make 400-500 times the median salary for employees. In the U.K. it’s 22x, in France 15x, in Germany it's 12x. US ceo’s aren’t superior to German ceo’s, so don’t try to argue that they earn it.

 

[deleted480308]

The companies can do what they want with the savings, or they can pay the ceo $50,000,000 and have him pay $35,000,000 in taxes if they want.

it's not your concern what the company pays them and you shouldn't be asking to insert the govt into that equation to try and force behavior. It's simply not your business

 

[deleted162650]

You’ll never convince executives to pay the employees more. What you do instead is have a very high tax rate for people making over $5,000,000 per year and a very very high tax rate for people making $10,000,000. You tax extraordinarily high incomes so much that it isn’t worth it to the corporation to pay them that much. If they want to spend the money currently wasted on executives to raise wages, increase R&D, buy back stock, raise dividends, etc, it’s up to them, but any alternative is preferable to extraordinary executive pay.
I mean don’t feel sorry for them. They’ll still get $5,000,000 per year.

Careful there. $5,000,000 and $500,000 is more or less the same to most people in this country. It’s a slippery slope.