What is Democratic Socialism???

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Or maybe she doesn't agree with everything the DSA stand for just like every Republican and every Democrat doesn't agree with everything in the Democratic or Republican platform.

 

I don't know if Sanders is part of the DSA, but he absolutely calls himself a democratic socialist.

 

Which I don't think either of them should be doing unless they really mean it, that's my point from the OP.  

 

I can't tell if you have a Facebook, so I'm going to show you some examples of what I mean by these groups trying to attach my generation to Socialism without our permission:

 

https://www.facebook.com/bernlennials/

 

Notice the URL?  What about the front picture?  I don't know if you looked at the link I posted about her platform but here is one of her items that comes across emotional appealing pipe-dream, similar to Bernie's wanting for free college (that you and I disagree with):

 

 

You have to remember that DSA has made it clear that it is in this for the long game and doesn't expect everything it wants up front.  People like Ocasio-Cortez, she's attached herself to a philosophy and group that in the long run doesn't trust capitalism to look out for our best interests and wants to eventually end it.

 

You're right that Bernie doesn't believe in Public take over of means of Production, and has even said he admires aspects of Social Democracy practiced in Western Europe, which has actual had him on blast from groups like DSA that say he's not going far enough:

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/real-socialists-think-bernies-a-sellout

 

And you know what, looking more in Ocasio-Cortez, I don't think they like her, either, because she's running under that DS banner without fully understanding it or getting her numbers right:

 

http://www.leftvoice.org/Does-Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-Represent-the-Politics-of-the-DSA

 

Quote

Ocasio-Cortez’s politics are linked to her mediocre conception of democratic socialism: “I believe that in a moral and wealthy America, in a moral and modern America, no person should be too poor to live in this country,” she told Meghan McCain on The View. Many of the DSA’s national and regional leaders have since come out to expound theirversion of democratic socialism. Although there is no unanimous agreement within the DSA about the meaning of this term, some remarks are considerably to the left of Ocasio-Cortez’s. Julia Salazar, who is also running on a Democratic ticket, was more categorical when asserting that “a democratic socialist recognizes the capitalist system as being inherently oppressive, and is actively working to dismantle it and to empower the working class and the marginalized in our society.”

 

 

But that's just further muddying the possible future of the democratic party.  The goal of these socialist organizations is to have one foot in one foot out in regards to politics (endorsing candidates they believe bring them closer to what they what), with intention to either take the progressives out the party or just take over the party.  That scares the hell out of me, because like I've said, the misinformation I believe is intentional, and like @twa you don't judge a policy on its intentions, you judge it on its results.  We don't have a working example of the Utopian version of Democratic Socialism, I don't think we ever will.  Ever time I look at the socialism wiki page, I can't help but notice the two international meetings where Marx side and the DS kept coming together, had this arguement the first time, then second time realized Communism was going to win out.  Why?  Not just because he didn't think it went far enough, but he didn't believe you could get an entire country to just agree to implement full on Democratic Socialism.  

 

 

Quote

Is a company owned by its workers still private?  https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100

 

Capitalism (in the US) is over.

 

(It looks like to me the DSA wants to an employee ownership model for companies, but somebody still has to the top and highest paid employee, right?  which isn't really socialism.  The government doesn't control Publix any more than any other grocery store.)

 

Capitalism is not over, Social Democracy is what's next and the US becoming more of a mixed economy once MFA happens.  I'd say in the case of a company owned by its workers, yes, that's private, because in the context of socialism, Public is in regards to the government and Private is in regards to the individual (in this case multiple individuals control the means of production, not just one).  Please show me where DSA wants someone on top?  Please show where they don't want the company to be state-run.  That's more like taking over starbucks and still having someone in charge of it same way you'd appoint someone for a cabinet position to run an agency.  Does DSA want a bunch of Publix's everywhere, wants them run by the government?  It really doesn't matter if their goal is to eliminate capitalism, whether its the employees that run the company (that kind of public) or the government (that kind of public), making that nationwide would have to be enforced.  We've already talked about how that would go here.

[Zguy28]

11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Or maybe she doesn't agree with everything the DSA stand for just like every Republican and every Democrat doesn't agree with everything in the Democratic or Republican platform.

 

I don't know if Sanders is part of the DSA, but he absolutely calls himself a democratic socialist.

 

Is a company owned by its workers still private?  https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100

 

Capitalism (in the US) is over.

 

(It looks like to me the DSA wants to an employee ownership model for companies, but somebody still has to the top and highest paid employee, right?  which isn't really socialism.  The government doesn't control Publix any more than any other grocery store.)

Bernie Sanders is not a member of DSA. According to them, he's not socialist enough. I posted a link one time a few weeks ago but can't find it.

 

 

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Bernie Sanders is not a member of DSA. According to them, he's not socialist enough. I posted a link one time a few weeks ago but can't find it.

 

 

Posted one in my post just before yours.

[PeterMP]

12 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I took a little time to look around, coupe things I think might qualify as not dictated by needing to stay competitive to keep employees, but take a look and let me know what you think (this is all since tax bill went through):

 

http://fortune.com/2018/02/08/cvs-raise-wages-offer-four-weeks-paid-parental-leave/

 

 

http://www.lockportjournal.com/news/local_news/m-t-bank-raises-employee-wages/article_a9a7cee3-b8ea-5ef6-8f12-1665f475e346.html

 

 

https://fox8.com/2018/01/24/starbucks-giving-workers-raises-stock-bonuses-due-to-tax-law/

 

 

Target is raising its minimum wage to $15/h by end of this decade, and article I found said shareholders were grumbling about it, BUT NOT SUING THEM.  This kinda does feel like its an attempt to get better employees, but fact their shareholders clearly don't like it but not suing them like you said, I had to add it.

 

https://abc13.com/business/target-to-increase-its-minimum-wage-for-employees/3185994/

 

 

And of course, everyones favorite, Wells Fargo (added since this is memo to their employees bringing up how they have been adding benefits outside of wages recently without resistance from shareholders or being sued:

 

https://newsroom.wf.com/press-release/corporate-and-financial/wells-fargo-raise-minimum-hourly-pay-rate-15-target-400

 

 

 

 

 

That's a good question that I find hypocritical on corporate america's end because they are doing (overpaying their CEO) and gotten this far.  The point is, companies are doing both (raising pay for employees because they can and CEOs because they can) and there isn't nearly as much resistance as there should be base one what you are saying the law says.

 

 

So this is what I think I'm trying to understand and maybe haven't been asking correctly.  You're talking about a finite amount of money in this country that is too highly accumulated in the 1%.  Are you saying unless we make print more money there's no way we can leave the 1% alone and make sure the 99% have what they need?  I mean, how can you get that money from the 1% legally outside of taxes?  Where does the money these corporations have that belongs to the corporation fit into this?  Can't that money be sent down to the 99% as well via wages and benefits.  Again, I'm not going to let go of trying to raise taxes for social services and doing what we can to encourage more wage growth.  You've been saying corporate america won't do it unless they have to out of fear of being sued, based on the few examples I've provided (and I know there's more), I don't find that true.

 

 

I think we should adjust the fudiciary laws to allow companies to look out all their employees the way they do their CEOs.  If a company wants to pay their people more, they should be allowed to do that.  Its up to corporate america to stand up to their own CEOs if they feel they are paying them that much, but they should have the right to pay them what they want.

 

I'd like to hear your plan for raising wages naturally, I'm sure there's a way that doesn't involve implementing a social state.

 

1.  Companies are raising wages because the labor market is tightened as unemployment has declined- supply and demand (see the article that I posted already from Bloomberg with respect to Walmart).  They are crediting the tax cut for PR reasons.  If anybody took them to court, companies would correctly point to the decrease in unemployment and increases in minimum wages in many areas (if I'm a Walmart around Seattle, but not actually in it, I'm competing with the Seattle businesses for low wage workers so I'm going to have to pay workers mores.) and the need to pay people more to attract the same quality of worker. People understand this, which is why stock holders aren't suing.

 

(And, I'll point out that isn't really actually wage growth because what we are seeing is an increase in inflation.  Real wage growth when taking into account inflation has actually been flat so workers aren't really actually better off.  These "raises" aren't even keeping up with inflation.

 

Think about that for a 2nd.  Companies are claiming they are giving raises because they have increased profits, but inflation is going up.  For inflation to be going up, what also has to have happened- companies have to have increased prices.  These same companies that are claiming that they can afford to give their employees more money out of the kindness of their hearts because their profits went up (because they got a big tax cut) turned around and raised prices.)

 

2.  More fundamentally, it is crazy to leave the wages of the 99% up the arbitrary decision making of the top 1%.  Long term, that is certainly going to be a loser 

 

3.  You do things like the EU has done to start limiting CEO salaries (I already posted a story on this).  The UK is also looking to do things to start to limit CEO pay.   https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/15/news/companies/ceo-pay-uk-inequality/index.html  And Canada is also looking at it.

 

4. Printing more money wouldn't help.  You'd just create more inflation.  One thing would be to force companies to actually spend money.  The issue right now is that globally labor is cheap and in general the transfer of things from one place to another is cheap and easy, especially information which is probably the most valuable thing around.  ( @Why am I Mr. Pink? brought up coding as a way to get rich, but I know middle aged programmers that are taking education classes so that they can get jobs teaching because programming is being out sourced so much today).  

 

5.  In order to increase wages, we have to increase the value of labor to things that are specific to the US and so can't be easily be out sourced.  We also need to force the wealthy and corporations to spend money (vs. invest/save it) and mostly in the US.

[Renegade7]

@PeterMP seriously, man, all those companies are jus lying about having the extra revenue and deciding to invest in their employees but the shareholders know the truth and that's why they aren't sueing?  You can do better then that, Starbucks is helping employee do online degrees for free, is that because nobody wants to get paid to make Starbucks coffee? Weak, I'll address the rest later, but you just admit your wrong on that front so we can address dress some different topics (I'll have to come back to rest of your post later, but that some thinwhiteduke open your eyes nonsense right there)

[PeterMP]

54 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@PeterMP seriously, man, all those companies are jus lying about having the extra revenue and deciding to invest in their employees but the shareholders know the truth and that's why they aren't sueing?  You can do better then that, Starbucks is helping employee do online degrees for free, is that because nobody wants to get paid to make Starbucks coffee? Weak, I'll address the rest later, but you just admit your wrong on that front so we can address dress some different topics (I'll have to come back to rest of your post later, but that some thinwhiteduke open your eyes nonsense right there)

 

So bloomberg is wrong?
 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-12/the-real-reason-walmart-raised-its-minimum-wage

 

I guess Fortune is too:

 

http://fortune.com/2018/01/11/walmart-minimum-starting-wages-raises-bonuses/

 

"I am dubious about Walmart’s claim. First, it has already been raising wages, and began doing so well before the corporate tax cut passed. It first did so in a well-publicized move in early 2015, when it raised its minimum wage to $9 an hour. In 2016, it followed up with another increase to $10. The current increase simply continues a trend it started three years ago."

 

It isn't hard to understand.  As unemployment has gone down, supply and demand has dictated that wages go up and that's what happened.  Unemployment, especially among low income workers, has been going down for the last few years and so have their wages.

 

And what is Target actually telling its investors:

 

https://footwearnews.com/2018/business/retail/target-employee-salary-minimum-wage-earnings-q4-profits-515364/

 

"CFO and EVP Catherine Smith told investors during a call today that several profit headwinds contributed to the firm’s EPS during the period, “including accelerated depreciation resulting from our remodel program, continued cost pressure from the rapid rollout of our new fulfillment options [and] ongoing wage investments in the face of a tight labor market across the country.”"

 

Oh that's right.  Wages are going up because the labor market is getting tighter (unemployment is low).

[Renegade7]

@PeterMP you only addressing one of the examples I posted (target) where I flat out said you might be right on but they still aren't suing them.  Why you go straight to walmart, which is NOT an example I cited, go after the ones I posted to dispute your claim shareholders would sue if company raising wages and adding employee benefits because they can instead of have to.

 

I mean, first you say they all lying, I ask you to prove it, then you try to prove it with an example(walmart) I intentionally didn't provide?  Smh, and you still haven't answered my question on Starbucks and free online college, where's the pitchforks for that?

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@PeterMP you only addressing one of the examples I posted (target) where I flat out said you might be right on but they still aren't suing them.  Why you go straight to walmart, which is NOT an example I cited, go after the ones I posted to dispute your claim shareholders would sue if company raising wages and adding employee benefits because they can instead of have to.

 

I mean, first you say they all lying, I ask you to prove it, then you try to prove it with an example(walmart) I intentionally didn't provide?  Smh, and you still haven't answered my question on Starbucks and free online college, where's the pitchforks for that?

 

You cited Walmart originally back a few pages (where I originally posted the Bloomsberg article).  They are all looking at the same labor market and essentially competing for a similar pool of employees and as that labor market has tightened, they all are offering new incentives to employees whether it is a flat increase in wages or Starbucks and free college tuition.  If Walmart and Target raise their wages citing a tightening labor market that forces every other company competing for the same workers to do so and when you have low unemployment, you have a tightening labor market.

 

And they are all hedging their bets in public statements.  Another example Wells Fargo:

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-fargo-taxes-pay-20171221-story.html

 

"“As it relates to team members, minimum pay is a topic that we continue to review as part of our efforts to attract and retain talent, and we have been on a path to increasing the minimum hourly rate, having most recently increased it in January 2017,” Gilchrist said in an email in response to an inquiry from The Times.

 

Asked directly to confirm that the pay raises were not a result of the tax bill, Gilchrist said, “That is correct.”"

 

Oh, wait they aren't doing it because their profits went up because of tax, but because they have to to continue to attract and retain people.

 

From the last line of your Starbucks link:

 

"Economists say the tight labor market pressures companies to raise wages and expand benefits to retain employees and fill open positions."

 

(The Starbucks free tuition is actually probably the most genius reading about it, they don't reimburse you until you've completed 21 credit hours and you have to have a B in the classes they do reimburse you for, and if you leave the job before you get to 21 credit, they reimburse you for nothing.  They have a nice sounding gimmick to recruit and keep people, but what they actually are paying is at least deferred and for many people will probably never come, plus I wouldn't be shocked if they have some sort of kick back deal with ASU.  But it is common in the fast food industry because it helps them retain employees:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/restaurants-use-college-tuition-programs-to-combat-high-turnover.html

 

"Starbucks has found that education benefits kept baristas behind the counter longer. The company told CNBC that employees that were enrolled in its college program were 1.5 times more likely to stay with the brand and are being promoted at 2.5 times the rate of those that are not enrolled. Other restaurants also report positive experiences."

 

)

 

If you tried to sue a company now for upping any sort of benefit to low skilled workers, you'd get laughed out of court.  Unemployment goes down wages for low skill workers is going up.  That's basic economics.  Suing a company as a share holder isn't easy, but in this case companies have a clear economic motivation for upping benefits to their low income workers.

 

The combination of the shrinking unemployment and increases in minimum wage in some areas is forcing all low wage places to increase their minimum wage and this has been slowly happening for years as the economy has improved.

 

Do you really take corporate press releases seriously?

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

You cited Walmart originally back a few pages (where I originally posted the Bloomsberg article). 

 

I think you're underestimating the fact that I actually am listening to you and learning from this conversation.  That's why I didn't include wal-mart on my list of examples, because you were right on that one and was going to blow it up.  I get that this is not a normal conversation in that it's a message board, but if I've admitted to understanding a concept, you shouldn't go back several pages to cite a point that I didn't to help make your point.  At least this way we can avoid going in circles.

 

Quote

Do you really take corporate press releases seriously?

 

Not anymore I don't, Wells Fargo a bunch of snakes anyway, you win that particular example.  I'm starting to realize something though, you didn't shot down every example I had in that post, but you acknowledged that corporate america is basically deciding to raising wages for their minimum salary workers if for any reason to keep them.  If these businesses are raising their wages to $15/h despite the typical conservative talking point that that's too high, they aren't being sued, and the government isn't forcing them to do it, isn't that actually a good thing?  I mean, think about it, if $15/h becomes normal without socialism, do we really need socialism?

 

I don't see the point in blasting Starbucks for their "scheme", I wouldn't let anyone join a program like that for college courses unless they'd take it seriously, B average is being nice.  And if you can't see it through, Starbucks shouldn't have to either. But their program has evolved since 2014, Starbucks covers the entire bachelors now if you see it through.  They are also doing reimbursements at the end of each semester starting at Freshman all the way to the end.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanderark/2018/04/16/education-as-a-benefit-more-companies-support-degree-pathways/#78f4fb67474f

 

Quote

Full and part-time U.S. partners (employees) at Starbucks enrolling in ASU Online are eligible for full tuition coverage toward a bachelor's degree. Partners receive support from coaches and advisors, 24/7 tutoring on a variety of subjects, and a choice of more than 60 undergraduate degrees. The Starbucks reimbursement covers tuition cost beyond any aid provided by ASU or the federal government.

 

And after reading your own CNBC article, I had no idea that many fast-food restaurants were starting to do the same thing.  If this and $15/h becomes common without government forcing it via socialism or other means, how is this a bad thing?  I may not be able to prove that every example is out the kindness of their heart, but if this becomes normal, I shouldn't need to.  I don't see shareholders getting in the way of this, either, this is awesome, man.  Imagine if this type of college reimbursement level (like full reimbursement) starts making it to high-level positions.  My job doing Cyber Security as a contractor for the government is offering me free training and courses so they can have me capable for different positions in the company, along with some tuition reimbursement. 

 

Capitalism helping to pay for college could end up gaining serious momentum, and add MFA to that, what do you think?  Still need democratic socialism?

 

Spoiler

 

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I think you're underestimating the fact that I actually am listening to you and learning from this conversation.  That's why I didn't include wal-mart on my list of examples, because you were right on that one and was going to blow it up.  I get that this is not a normal conversation in that it's a message board, but if I've admitted to understanding a concept, you shouldn't go back several pages to cite a point that I didn't to help make your point.  At least this way we can avoid going in circles.

 

 

Not anymore I don't, Wells Fargo a bunch of snakes anyway, you win that particular example.  I'm starting to realize something though, you didn't shot down every example I had in that post, but you acknowledged that corporate america is basically deciding to raising wages for their minimum salary workers if for any reason to keep them.  If these businesses are raising their wages to $15/h despite the typical conservative talking point that that's too high, they aren't being sued, and the government isn't forcing them to do it, isn't that actually a good thing?  I mean, think about it, if $15/h becomes normal without socialism, do we really need socialism?

 

I don't see the point in blasting Starbucks for their "scheme", I wouldn't let anyone join a program like that for college courses unless they'd take it seriously, B average is being nice.  And if you can't see it through, Starbucks shouldn't have to either. But their program has evolved since 2014, Starbucks covers the entire bachelors now if you see it through.  They are also doing reimbursements at the end of each semester starting at Freshman all the way to the end.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanderark/2018/04/16/education-as-a-benefit-more-companies-support-degree-pathways/#78f4fb67474f

 

I'm not trying to shoot down every example mostly because I don't have time to go through meeting for share holder minute meetings for all of them- especially if you look at Starbucks they appear to be audio or video files so I can't even find a transcript I can easily search or read.  They are all looking at the same issue in terms of tightening of the labor market and responding the same way.  It is basic economics.

 

I don't see where your link says they are covering at the end of the semester.  I saw before they started after you had gained 21 credits (they'd pay for those 21 credits, but you had to have that many before they started paying).  Everywhere I've been associated with 21 credits would have been a very full load for one semester.

 

It isn't hard to see where the Starbucks thing would actually long term reduce real wage growth.  It has taken you a few years to get 15 credits in, and then you find out you can get a better job.  What are you going to do?  And you have to take the classes on line at ASU, which means you are going to be limited in terms of the ability to what degrees you can get (only things ASU is offering on line) and things like the ability to transfer credits.  I work at a University.  We aren't transferring in 21 credits from anywhere.  If you wanted to take a few courses that you could actually then transfer where I work to get a degree in something ASU doesn't offer on line, then you are out of luck.  If Starbucks really wanted to their employees, they'd at least give them the option of matching with cash at other places.  But that's not what it is really about.  It is about keeping their employees from switching jobs every time a slightly better option opens up- which means long term they are actually going to depress wages.

 

I'm working at Starbucks, but I can go across the street to McDonalds and make $..25 more an hour that has a similar college payment program, but then I lose the money for those 12 credits I already took. (Oh and then 6 months later I'm now at 18 credits and something unexpected happens in my life and I'm forced to quit the Starbucks anyway, I'm now completely out of the money.  Starbucks got me work there for another 6 months for $.25 less an hour without actually any additional benefit to me.)

 

The biggest issue is that income for the bottom of the barrel is dictated by supply and demand.  The income for the top 1% in many cases is not really governor by supply and demand.  The bottom of the barrel workers are going to continually lose out to the 1% over longish periods of times.

 

AND, again, since the wage growth of the bottom is being pushed by the economic recovery, it also comes with inflation so in real terms the bottom is seeing no wage growth.  That's really the key.  The top 1% income is out growing GDP (and inflation).  The bottom 1% is not.  (Because the income for the top 1% has been divorced from supply and demand in many cases, while the bottom has not.) 

 

The key isn't to simply have wages for the 99% to rise, but to actually have them rise faster than inflation so that the 99% are actually making more.  If the only time the 99% income rises is due to supply and demand with concomitant increases in inflation, they are never really going to be doing better.  And that isn't happening now.

 

(In general, I'm not a huge fan of minimum wage increases.  They aren't the panacea that some on the left think they are (they also aren't the negative that some on the right paint them as either).  They are a mixed bag and have different affects at different times on different populations.  I think right now an increase in minimum wage probably makes sense, but IMO even just focusing on wealth inequality, there are bigger issues.  So I wouldn't argue for any general long term government system based on a particular minimum wage.)

[Renegade7]

@PeterMP you're a lot more of a pessimist then I realized: 

 

https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/starbucks-college-achievement-plan/

 

Quote

Glassdoor: Venturing into new territory can be challenging. What lessons did you learn along the way? How has the program evolved?

 

Mary Dixon: In 2014 when we launched Starbucks College Achievement Plan, we thought that partners just needed help getting to completion, so we treated juniors and seniors differently than freshman and sophomores and set the program up to reimburse partners every 6 months. We heard this was too complicated and 6 months was too long to wait for reimbursement. So, we expanded in 2015 and treated every academic level the same and changed to direct reimbursement after each session, directly into the partner’s paycheck before the next tuition bill is due.

 

In support of our Veteran partners, as they have access to the GI bill for education, we expanded to enable them to gift their education benefit to a family member

 

1 in 5 of our partners had past academic history which prevented admission to ASU. We worked together with ASU and launched “Pathway to Admission’ to customize a solution for partners to work towards admissions into Arizona State University.

 

I'm trying to find sources you'd find respectable, nut they do cover 100% now:

 

Quote

What is so unique about this program is the comprehensive design. There is no other program like this. We cover 100% of tuition, partners can pursue any of the more than 70 degrees offered, there is no ‘give back’ to Starbucks, they can leave after graduation, and there is robust team of counselors and a dedicated success coach for each partner. This is available to every level of the organization, the only requirements are that a partner is benefits eligible (which means working an average of 20 hours a week) and doesn’t have a bachelor’s degree.

 

Im mean now were to 15/h, free college, and MFA not good enough because there's no way to garuntee it's going to keep up with inflation? You are nearly impossible to please.  ASU is regionally accredited, so they arent stuck there like people from ITT were. What university they teach at? You ask if they take ASU credits at all, let people finish their bachelor's there?

[PeterMP]

56 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@PeterMP you're a lot more of a pessimist then I realized: 

 

It isn't pessimistic to think that Starbucks is looking out for Starbucks.  It is what companies are supposed to do (and what they are legally required to do).  It is actually a requirement of capitalism and free markets.

 

We know long term it hasn't kept up with inflation.  It is a fact.  Even now with the increases, things are at best keeping up with inflation.  It isn't about there being a guarantee.  There isn't an iota of evidence that it is going to.

 

Allowing the status quo to continue is almost certainly going to result in the status quo (with the 99% falling further and further behind the 1%).  If it is acceptable to you that that the 99% fall further and further behind the 1%, then keep relying on market forces and the good will of the 1% to raise the wages of the 99%, while allowing the 1% (to largely and in many cases) determine their own pay.

 

Every university has limits on the number of credits that will allow to be transferred in from any other college and on line degrees will always be limited in terms of what can be taught on line (things where there is minimal need for actual access to high end and high priced equipment and materials).

 

Why doesn't Starbucks offer a cash match to any state university for what they are paying for an ASU credit?  Because by locking you into credits/programs at ASU, they are locking you into Starbucks.

[Renegade7]

@PeterMP you didn't answer my question on if someone can transfer from ASU to your university.  They are offering 70 online degrees via this program, you really gonna put them on blast because they can't get a degree in HVAC versus cybersecurity, programming, accounting, human resources, etc? 

 

What's your plan to make sure wages keep up with inflation, obviously ignoring fact it would take a while for $15/h to be useless as current minimum wage is now. I also want to add I never made more then $12/h until after I finished my bachelors, $15/h would've been a different story for me

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@PeterMP you didn't answer my question on if someone can transfer from ASU to your university.  They are offering 70 online degrees via this program, you really gonna put them on blast because they can't get a degree in HVAC versus cybersecurity, programming, accounting, human resources, etc? 

 

What's your plan to make sure wages keep up with inflation, obviously ignoring fact it would take a while for $15/h to be useless as current minimum wage is now. I also want to add I never made more then $12/h until after I finished my bachelors, $15/h would've been a different story for me

 

Taking into account what has happened with inflation, it would have made less of a difference than you think.

 

Yes, up to a point.  It is about 2 years worth of classes, and then certain classes can't be transferred in at all depending on the major.

 

The degrees that you can get online are all information heavy degrees that then lead to jobs that can most easily be out sourced.  Not just HVAC- any non-front end/software based engineering degree, chemistry, teaching, nursing, etc. are all out.  Looking, ASU offers biochemistry on-line, but I suspect you are going to find it very hard to get a job without practical lab based biochemistry experience.  On-line degrees are based on the ability for information to flow easily from one place to another, but degrees that can be best offered based on simple information flow are the ones that are easiest to out source.

 

1.  Take efforts to curb CEO pay (the EU and UK are already doing this and Canada has started to gather information on CEO pay to start to curb it) ideally by re-introducing supply and demand forces, but if that can't be done by using government regulations to mimic them.

 

2.  Change the tax code to make saving/investing/passing on wealth less of an advantage for the wealthy shifting them to spend money or pay more in taxes.

 

3.  Government jobs tend to be good middle class jobs.  Stop "shrinking" government by having the government contract out jobs.  All that does is transfer wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, and it really doesn't shrink the government.

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Taking into account what has happened with inflation, it would have made less of a difference than you think.

 

If your saying even raising wages isn't enough, you saying attacking inflation is more important? How do we do that realisticly?

 

Quote

Yes, up to a point.  It is about 2 years worth of classes, and then certain classes can't be transferred in at all depending on the major.

 

I mean, that's cool, someone at that point with an associates degree could get a job in a field they studied (like I did) and luck up with a company that does partial tuition reimbursement for any school (which my job couldn't but that's jus my situation).  Can whole degrees transfer, yall accept ASU bachelors to head into masters like ecpi is taking my ITT bachelors? Even a couple credits not accepted despite having an associates ain't that bad if its gotten them out of Starbucks, that sounds like upward mobility to me.

 

Quote

The degrees that you can get online are all information heavy degrees that then lead to jobs that can most easily be out sourced.  Not just HVAC- any non-front end/software based engineering degree, chemistry, teaching, nursing, etc. are all out.  Looking, ASU offers biochemistry on-line, but I suspect you are going to find it very hard to get a job without practical lab based biochemistry experience.  On-line degrees are based on the ability for information to flow easily from one place to another, but degrees that can be best offered based on simple information flow are the ones that are easiest to out source.

 

Did even look at their most popular degrees before you posted that?

 

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/arizona-state-university-1081/bachelors

Psychology, General

9%

 

Criminal Justice/Law Enforcement Administration

8%

 

Liberal Arts and Sciences/Liberal Studies

8%

 

Speech Communication and Rhetoric

7%

 

Registered Nursing/Registered Nurse

6%

 

•  

 

Those aren't position in danger of being outsourced, government is not going to outsource cybersecurity to a foriegn country, devops along with cyber are exploding in this country.  You can't just say out of 70 online programs they don't matter because they are in danger of being outsourced anyway, otherwise what's the point of even going to college? Show the numbers if you're going to make a hopeless, blanket statement like that.

 

Quote

1.  Take efforts to curb CEO pay (the EU and UK are already doing this and Canada has started to gather information on CEO pay to start to curb it) ideally by re-introducing supply and demand forces, but if that can't be done by using government regulations to mimic them.

 

Again, from article I posted about CEO, we're talking about 350 people forcing up the "average" pay for the other 200k CEOs.  Are you really that sure our entire economy is beholden to the pay of 350 people out of 350 million?

Quote

2.  Change the tax code to make saving/investing/passing on wealth less of an advantage for the wealthy shifting them to spend money or pay more in taxes.

 

Show me numbers that you'd like to see, I imagine it's low, but I don't want to come across as punishing people for setting their kids up for life.  I think capital gains tax is way too low, but we have to be careful not to discourage people from investing.

 

Quote

3.  Government jobs tend to be good middle class jobs.  Stop "shrinking" government by having the government contract out jobs.  All that does is transfer wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, and it really doesn't shrink the government.

 

No argument here, I've been pushing for this since I understood how much that meant to NOVA as a kid, even more now since I understand it more.

[PeterMP]

15 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

If your saying even raising wages isn't enough, you saying attacking inflation is more important? How do we do that realisticly?

 

 

I mean, that's cool, someone at that point with an associates degree could get a job in a field they studied (like I did) and luck up with a company that does partial tuition reimbursement for any school (which my job couldn't but that's jus my situation).  Can whole degrees transfer, yall accept ASU bachelors to head into masters like ecpi is taking my ITT bachelors? Even a couple credits not accepted despite having an associates ain't that bad if its gotten them out of Starbucks, that sounds like upward mobility to me.

 

 

Did even look at their most popular degrees before you posted that?

 

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/arizona-state-university-1081/bachelors

Psychology, General

9%

 

Criminal Justice/Law Enforcement Administration

8%

 

Liberal Arts and Sciences/Liberal Studies

8%

 

Speech Communication and Rhetoric

7%

 

Registered Nursing/Registered Nurse

6%

 

•  

 

Those aren't position in danger of being outsourced, government is not going to outsource cybersecurity to a foriegn country, devops along with cyber are exploding in this country.  You can't just say out of 70 online programs they don't matter because they are in danger of being outsourced anyway, otherwise what's the point of even going to college? Show the numbers if you're going to make a hopeless, blanket statement like that.

 

 

Again, from article I posted about CEO, we're talking about 350 people forcing up the "average" pay for the other 200k CEOs.  Are you really that sure our entire economy is beholden to the pay of 350 people out of 350 million?

 

Show me numbers that you'd like to see, I imagine it's low, but I don't want to come across as punishing people for setting their kids up for life.  I think capital gains tax is way too low, but we have to be careful not to discourage people from investing.

 

 

No argument here, I've been pushing for this since I understood how much that meant to NOVA as a kid, even more now since I understand it more.

 

Neither one is more important.  We've had low inflation with essentially no (and during the recession really negative) wage growth, and now we have wage growth that is being off set by inflation.  We need to have a period of time where we have wage growth that out paces inflation (for the 99%).  The Fed attempts to control inflation by adjusting interest rates.

 

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-job-cremators

 

(Good piece on the link between wage growth, job growth, inflation, and the Fed.)

 

Yes, I did, which is how I knew they offered a degree in biochemistry. 

 

(And looking in more detail, they call the biochemistry program "on-line", but they have labs you have to take in person:

 

https://asuonline.asu.edu/online-degree-programs/undergraduate/bachelor-science-biochemistry

 

"In order to complete the online biochemistry degree, the students must complete organic chemistry and biochemistry lab courses in person. The in-person lab courses provide the students with unique and invaluable hands-on laboratory experiences. Many students use these lab experiences to position themselves as strong candidates for graduate programs in the sciences or health professions, in particular for medical, physician assistant, dental and pharmacy schools."

 

That's probably 4 labs that must be taken in order one at a time (so 2 years of labs) with the first one taken sophomore year and other upper level classes can't be completed until that lab is completed so for most Starbucks workers it isn't really an option.  I'm curious how many of their other "on-line" degrees have similar requirements.  How many of their "on-line" degrees aren't really all "on-line" and aren't really options for the vast majority of Starbucks employees?)

 

Go to their actual page (https://asuonline.asu.edu/).  On-line they offer a RN to a BSN in nursing.  In order to get a nursing degree with them on-line, you already have to have an RN (a registered nurse), which means you already have to have the practical experience (and the practical education).  You can't get a degree in nursing without interacting with real patients, which can't be done through an on-line only program.

 

The federal government for high priority jobs that must be kept in country is only ever going to need to a limited number of cyber security jobs.  Other places (e.g. universities and health care providers) are absolutely already outsourcing cyber security jobs.

 

https://www.csoonline.com/article/2134457/strategic-planning-erm/the-risk-of-offshoring-security.html

 

"What somewhat comforts me is a Computer Security Institute study from several years ago, which surveyed 479 security executives from various corporations and organizations in the United States. 61% of them said they've outsourced none of their security functions. 22% said they've outsourced up to 20% of their security. 8% said they've outsourced 21% to 40%. 10% said they outsourced 41% or more of their security."

 

And if we have another recession, it will absolutely increase.

 

I didn't say they don't matter, but they are limited and people that are going to get these degrees are going to be the most likely people with college degrees to suffer if/when the economy slows.  And the most relevant point is, that it isn't really a program that is being run for the good of the workers or designed to maximally help the workers.  It is a program being run to help Starbucks retain workers.  Starbucks could absolutely offer the same sort of program where they are reimbursing to any state school or actually increase the pay of their workers and allow them to roll the extra money into doing whatever they want with it.  Instead, they are offering this funky program that has pretty serious limitations that ties you to a certain school (and them).

 

Is it better than a sharp stick in the eye?  Yes.  Is it something designed to maximally impact their workers?  No.  Is it designed to help them retain workers and to discourage their workers from job jumping to slightly better opportunities?  ABSOLUTELY!

 

The issue isn't just those 350 people, which is why I listed 2 other things having nothing to do with CEO pay.  (I'll also point out the fact that 350 people are massively over paid isn't evidence that the other people aren't actually over paid too.  Those 350 just happen to the most extreme.)  However, (at least) those 350 people are an obvious issue and therefore something that should be relatively easy to tackle.  In a free market economy (which at least what many people want the US to be), when you have something that does not respond to free market forces (e.g. supply and demand), then you have to do something.

 

We should have an inheritance tax that's something like 90% for anything over $1 million, and there should be a lifetime accumulation on that.  My family (and this includes my kids where it is at least planned they will inherit money themselves) are going to inherit large sums of money from grandparents on both sides.  I'm pretty sure unless something odd happens and they happen to die the same year, both sets of inheritance will be treated separately.