twodot posted:

How'd you end up in a situation where these are mutually exclusive?

twodot posted:

Is someone out there advocating for a basic income without also changing the tax code? We don't need a separate agency from the IRS to figure out how to take money from people.

Alienwarehouse posted:

$15MW is only beneficial to employed people. It's a half-measure that doesn't address the fundamental issue of poverty in this country. Basic income/universal standard of living is what should be pursued. And I laugh at centrists and conservatives who say this is unaffordable considering that we spend almost a trillion dollars every year maintaining hundreds of military bases around the world in order to police countries full of brown people.

Ytlaya posted:

I was under the impression that when most people mention basic income that they're talking about giving a flat amount to every single American.

I don't really have any strong opinions either way about basic income and don't know that much about it. If it would be an effective way to give people a good standard of living, then that's great. It just seems kind of pointlessly wasteful to give it to literally every American regardless of current wealth/income, but it seems like that isn't an issue for certain implementations anyways.

twodot posted:

Cool. How'd you end up in a situation where it makes any sense to say someone supported a higher minimum wage instead of basic income? Like did your state have a ballot measure where you could vote yes on minimum wage increases or basic income but not both somehow? Do you have an illness where you can only seek one goal at a time? Maybe a pact with Satan, where you can pick any one policy measure to succeed, but after that all of your policy advocacy is doomed to failure?

VitalSigns posted:

JeffersonClay posted:

You think forcing all the undocumented immigrants into unemployment so they self-deport is a good idea? Banning exploitative jobs only helps workers if there are less exploitative jobs to take their place. This doesn't seem like a controversial point.

JeffersonClay posted:

You think forcing all the undocumented immigrants into unemployment so they self-deport is a good idea?

JeffersonClay posted:

You think forcing all the undocumented immigrants into unemployment so they self-deport is a good idea? Banning exploitative jobs only helps workers if there are less exploitative jobs to take their place. This doesn't seem like a controversial point.

Condiv posted:

yes? why should we protect the jobs of people who aren't legally allowed to be here?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

because they should be legally allowed to be here?

Condiv posted:

then give them legal status and protect their labor rights

the status quo only hurts legal laborers to the benefit of capitalists

please note: i'd still want employers who hired illegal laborers to be fined into nothingness. allowing companies to make use of illegal labor is utterly destructive to labor protections

Cerebral Bore posted:

Please tell me more about your libertarian deregulation fantasies and how those bangladeshi workers totally made a rational choice to get locked inside that burning factory.

Condiv posted:

yes? why should we protect the jobs of people who aren't legally allowed to be here?

doesn't seem to help anyone but the employers who use them to push down wages

edit: if we need immigrant workers so badly we should give them legal protections allowing them to be in the country, protecting their labor rights, etc.

JeffersonClay posted:

The way to help workers in terrible working conditions is to create better working conditions. Regulations can be a part of this strategy, but they aren't sufficient. If Bangladeshi workers are trapped in a choice between unsafe, exploitative work and starvation, eliminating the unsafe, exploitative work doesn't actually make them better off unless it results in better jobs. Without better jobs you're just forcing them to starve.

Ytlaya posted:

I've always felt that it might be a better idea to provide certain necessities directly, like housing or healthcare. If you give people a basic income and someone fucks up and spends too much to afford housing, that seems like a problem (I don't think people deserve to live on the streets as a result of doing stupid things). But then again I think I remember reading somewhere that direct cash transfers are the most effective form of welfare.

JeffersonClay posted:

I don't have a problem with this framing, you're at least being honest about not caring what happens to the people who lose their jobs. But the attempts to frame a ban on undocumented labor as a good thing for undocumented laborers because they're being exploited is absurd. Every worker in a capitalist system is being exploited. Forcing them into unemployment does not help them. Undocumented immigrants would benefit from legal status and labor protections, not self-deportation.

Cerebral Bore posted:

Yeah, because employers suddenly don't need workers anymore the moment safety regulations exist. You're literally defending sweatshops and now you're trying to appear pro-worker jfc.

JeffersonClay posted:

The way to help workers in terrible working conditions is to create better working conditions. Regulations can be a part of this strategy, but they aren't sufficient. If Bangladeshi workers are trapped in a choice between unsafe, exploitative work and starvation, eliminating the unsafe, exploitative work doesn't actually make them better off unless it results in better jobs. Without better jobs you're just forcing them to starve.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

loving kill yourself you colossal piece of poo poo

JeffersonClay posted:

Im pro sweatshop laborers not being forced into unemployment. If the narrative is "we should ban sweatshop products so foreign employers are forced to improve working conditions", I have no problem. If the narrative is " let's ban sweatshop products so employers are forced to bring jobs back to the US", I have a problem with the suggestion that sweatshop laborers would be better off. There's a symmetry between the latter and the argument Condiv is making about undocumented labor.

JeffersonClay posted:

If the narrative is "we should ban sweatshop products so foreign employers are forced to improve working conditions", I have no problem.

JeffersonClay posted:

Im pro sweatshop laborers not being forced into unemployment. If the narrative is "we should ban sweatshop products so foreign employers are forced to improve working conditions", I have no problem. If the narrative is " let's ban sweatshop products so employers are forced to bring jobs back to the US", I have a problem with the suggestion that sweatshop laborers would be better off. There's a symmetry between the latter and the argument Condiv is making about undocumented labor.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

loving kill yourself you colossal piece of poo poo

Kilroy posted:

If regulations aren't sufficient, what is? You seem to be suggesting that if you put in place proper labor and safety regulations, that the Bangladeshi economy will evaporate overnight. But if it's the case that Bangladesh simply can't have an economy without exploiting its workforce, then it doesn't seem like there's any solution, regulations or not.

So it sounds an awful lot like you're walking down the path toward "this is the best of all possible worlds, better just leave these people to their fate". Status quo, in other words. What a shock, coming from you!

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

because they should be legally allowed to be here?

ISIS CURES TROONS posted:

There's already a way to be legally allowed here. Those who try to jump the line should be disenfranchised and marginalized in favor of those who come in properly.

JeffersonClay posted:

If it's the case that Bangladesh can't have an economy without exploitation, then banning exploitation would be worse for Bangladesh than the status quo, because we know people prefer exploitative labor to unemployment and starvation. Bad is better than awful. If regulations are designed to force employers to improve conditions, great. If regulations are designed to force employers to move jobs back to the US, Bangladesh is going to be worse off.

quote:

In early June, Patagonia revealed on its company blog, the Cleanest Line, that three years ago it discovered evidence of “egregious employment practices,” including debt bondage, among seven of its suppliers. It worked to remediate the problem, only to discover that it was widespread, so it created a special policy across all its Taiwanese suppliers to root out the practice.

Debt bondage “creates a form of indentured servitude that could also qualify, less politely, as modern-day slavery. And it’s been happening in our own supply chain,” the company wrote.

Cerebral Bore posted:

lol yeah, and coincidentally you just so happen to argue that improving working conditions from goddamn sweatshops inevitably leads to unemployment so you shouldn't even try to help the workers. Where have we heard that one before? :

Kilroy posted:

Uh actually you have argued against this in the past, extensively, on free trade grounds. Change your mind?

Alienwarehouse posted:

$15MW is only beneficial to employed people. It's a half-measure that doesn't address the fundamental issue of poverty in this country. Basic income/universal standard of living is what should be pursued. And I laugh at centrists and conservatives who say this is unaffordable considering that we spend almost a trillion dollars every year maintaining hundreds of military bases around the world in order to police countries full of brown people.

Condiv posted:

i gotta say, it's always a shock when centrists defend sweatshops as uplifting people out of poverty. as if they forget what unrestricted capitalism looked like in our past and how we made that poo poo illegal cause it was no good for anyone but the ultrarich

oh well, might as well embrace slavery so that my t-shirts are $0.01 cheaper

JeffersonClay posted:

You've shown a complete lack of ability to read, comprehend, and remember my posts so quotes, please.

Condiv posted:

sweatshops are not charity, unless you consider debt bondage and indentured servitude charity

https://www.outsideonline.com/1999281/dirty-secret-hiding-our-outerwear

JeffersonClay posted:

It's not necessarily true but it's possible. It depends on the regulations and the labor market specifically. And it's the implicit assumption of anyone asserting that bans on sweatshop labor will bring jobs back to the US.

JeffersonClay posted:

It's not necessarily true but it's possible. It depends on the regulations and the labor market specifically. And it's the implicit assumption of anyone asserting that bans on sweatshop labor will bring jobs back to the US.


You've shown a complete lack of ability to read, comprehend, and remember my posts so quotes, please.

Kilroy posted:

gently caress off we're not doing that again. Last time I dug through your posts you just responded that you didn't say the things I literally just quoted back to you. At least own your neoliberalism, you colossal douche.

MooselanderII posted:

What point are you actually trying to make here? Is it that regulations that cause sweatshops to close are bad or that blanket bans on such jobs are bad? Or are you trying to say that regulations would always cause sweatshops to close and therefore are bad?

JeffersonClay posted:

Last time you dug through my posts you failed to find any that supported your claim. The same thing would have happened here.


Banning exploitative labor conditions only helps the exploited if better jobs take their place. The people who assert that these bans would result in more jobs for US workers are admitting that the current exploited workers will be worse off. Condiv is making this argument, right now in this thread, about banning undocumented labor. Trump made a very similar argument about sweatshop labor.

JeffersonClay posted:

Last time you dug through my posts you failed to find any that supported your claim. The same thing would have happened here.

twodot posted:

How is it wasteful? The IRS already understands how to tax people's Social Security income. The only costs are printing/mail the physical check and tax forms, and then IRS agents doing the job they already have.

JeffersonClay posted:

You think forcing all the undocumented immigrants into unemployment so they self-deport is a good idea? Banning exploitative jobs only helps workers if there are less exploitative jobs to take their place. This doesn't seem like a controversial point.

JeffersonClay posted:

Im pro sweatshop laborers not being forced into unemployment. If the narrative is "we should ban sweatshop products so foreign employers are forced to improve working conditions", I have no problem. If the narrative is " let's ban sweatshop products so employers are forced to bring jobs back to the US", I have a problem with the suggestion that sweatshop laborers would be better off. There's a symmetry between the latter and the argument Condiv is making about undocumented labor.

JeffersonClay posted:

If it's the case that Bangladesh can't have an economy without exploitation, then banning exploitation would be worse for Bangladesh than the status quo, because we know people prefer exploitative labor to unemployment and starvation. Bad is better than awful. If regulations are designed to force employers to improve conditions, great. If regulations are designed to force employers to move jobs back to the US, Bangladesh is going to be worse off.