SMBC: Regulatory Capture

HeckYeahSummer · 17 days

Sorry about the delay; life intervenes

I admit it has been a long time since I studied the Constitution or read the text in its entirety. I'd value it if you would share your credentials and your critique of my position.

Making statements about the way things "should be" isn't a way to stimulate a productive discussion

I don't agree with this statement, as normative statement as an expression of a philosophy or morality is a fine starting point to discuss its merits and implications. In any case, I don't see how this applies to what I have said in this thread. The normative statements I've made are:

foreign laborers who still deserve protection

education reform can't be the only type of empowerment available

Everything else I have said is interpretation, commentary, or rebuttal. Please point out where I have been making 'should be' statements in lieu of debating the point.

HeckYeahSummer · 18 days

anything that addresses workers specifically is outside the scope of the National Government

I disagree with this interpretation. Workers being part of the citizenry makes them a group the government must oversee the welfare of. It's an artificial handicap to say the government cannot make rules targeting a segment of the population, as at no point has the welfare and status of every citizen been the same such that a federal rule would apply to everyone equally, but the government is clearly intended to make laws with respect to welfare beyond 'all citizens are humans and have the corresponding rights'.

That's not what your tone and phrasing suggests. You're assuming airs and offering pronouncements on how the world should run based on your limited personal knowledge (and experience, if any)

In my opinion I have been unfailingly polite and considered all of your statements. I have genuinely tried to stimulate a productive discussion, yet you have been attacking me. I have offered my perspective and responded to what you have said. Your passive-aggressive and openly hostile statements are significantly more detrimental to the tone of this discussion.

I don't know what makes you think I am assuming airs as opposed to politely phrasing what I am saying. I have certainly not been making pronouncements based on limited knowledge, but offering a perspective and interpretation at your request. I have acknowledged your arguments and where we agree. On the other hand, in the space of a handful of comments you have so far accused me directly or implicitly of having an absolutist morality, of being conceited and 'assuming airs', of being an idiot, and a person of limited knowledge and experience in general. A number of your comments have been your personal attacks as opposed to discussion of the topic. Your extreme snap judgements are very concerning in that you have formed a strong negative opinion of someone you don't know and with whom you have barely conversed. Such absolutist interpretations are hindering our discussion. If you take issue with the tone of something specific I have said, please point it out.

it's not an ad hominem since I wasn't saying that your argument was invalid because you're idiot. I told you why your argument was bad, then I criticized your mindset

That does fall under the definition of an ad hominem-- 'an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it'. You believe me to hold an absolutist morality and to think in a conceited fashion, statements I cannot see the basis for and are irrelevant to the topic at hand. You just explicitly agreed with the statement you objected to, and then accused me of judging what is or is not equal when at no point I had referred to what constitutes equal work. That is a straw man argument.

HeckYeahSummer · 18 days

Everyone loves their own special interests, and hates others.

Save that the government's mandate specifically addresses the welfare of the citizenry, a superset of workers. It does not mention the obligation towards the welfare of the populace of other nations. It's a cold way of reading it, but it's certainly the most conservative.

If they don't have soft skills, it's not equal work.

My prior statement isn't universally true, but this isn't either. I would say there are roles where output between veteran and newer employees will be substantially the same (perhaps stocking shelves, handling mail, or to some extent cashiering). Higher level roles that are still considered unskilled could potentially require more learned skills.

You are in no position to judge, and I find your absolute moral judgments to be quite conceited.

I'm confused and taken aback by this sudden hostility. Where did that come from? I'm trying to build a bridge of constructive dialogue with you who has differing views. I don't think I have demonstrated either an absolutist morality or conceit. Could you explain your ad hominem?

In any case, I would say the injustice of unequal pay for equal work is not controversial, but rather whether a specific case qualifies as equal work.

Probably the smartest thing you've said yet.

Again, why the hostility? Have I unintentionally personally insulted you? If so, I apologize.

HeckYeahSummer · 18 days

For what purpose? For the benefit of the corporatists?

It's not simply a matter of companies wanting to push down labor costs, it seems a number of industries inherently rely on having many unskilled workers-- agriculture being a classic example, in the absence of a fruit-picking robot; or the postal system, in the absence of teleportation.

Good intentions do not a good policy make.

Fair, but I don't consider Iraq a valid analogy. To me, regulation to protect and support workers is well within the purview of the government, whereas unprovoked foreign aggression and occupation is what it is.

compensation for learning valuable soft skills

Mmm, that's a thorny problem. Yes, human capital development is essential and getting more youth to build those skills is laudable. And sure, creating more opportunities for their employment is great. However, I'd lean more towards lowering the minimum wage for those under 18 instead of wholesale abandonment under 25.

On the one hand, a job for teenagers is a great growth and development opportunity. On the other hand it's not fair to pay them unequally for equal work when it might be supporting a family, for example, and lowering their wages doesn't help that much. At the same time, you risk cutting the bottom off the unskilled labor market for those older than the statutory limit--why hire two 26 year olds when the same money pays for four equally capable 17 year olds? Plus there are all those cultural sensitivities about silly, irrelevant stuff like exploitation of child labor.

Were I to implement a program like that, I'd probably hamstring it a fair amount to soften the externalities. Maybe it would apply only to non-emancipated minors/dependents, with a floor of 50-75% of the equivalent adult wage and a maximum of 15-20 hours per kid per week? I'd love to tie in a dependency on advancement or at least non-truancy from a full-time school program, but I can't think of a reasonable way of fairly implementing that. Hopefully that would incentivize job training for teens while not overly discouraging their education or displacing other workers.

Just my naive take on it. I have to admit that I'm still developing my opinion on government and the economy. "Generally laissez-faire but regulated for a strong safety net for workers and transparency for investors" sounds great, but the devil's in the detailed implementation.

P.S.- I was under the impression that the high teen unemployment was largely from people hanging on to their jobs in the recession and that the halt in regular advancement extended all they way down the labor chain. From what I've heard, there are a lot of people in their 20s doing the low-level work that teens usually have been.

Edit: Sorry, my markup skills seem to have deserted me today.

HeckYeahSummer · 18 days

I see your point, but disagree. For the foreseeable future, there will always be a need for a large pool of cheap, unskilled labor. If that labor doesn't come from the citizenry, it will be from foreign laborers who still deserve protection.

The power disparity in 'negotiations' between unskilled labor and employers is nearly perfect, as the poorest and least educated (and possibly not proficient in English) are least able to create competition for the purchase of their labor; they often have to take any job available. As a result, we are seeing wages pushed below what I hope could be agreed is a living wage ($3-4/hr) in tipped positions. Clearly, education reform can't be the only type of empowerment available.

I feel like a reasonable minimum wage is a reasonable way to approach the problem. The argument that this limits employers' ability to hire is accepted, but are two people earning $4/hr better than one earning $8/hr? The one at least has some possibility of concentrating enough wealth to invest in empowering activities.

the_one_hero · 23 days

The joke

the_one_hero · 24 days

Ba-Zynga!

DrRichardCranium · 1 month

Why couldn't those options be given to the employees, though? I'll buy the argument that even the $370m saved by paying him the average CEO compensation isn't enough to fund much of a pension, but I disagree with the idea that all non-monetary compensation couldn't be part of one. Though sure, it would be difficult to allow all their employees a chauffeur and use of the company jet.

non_player · 1 month

Objection: 1000x as many blocks.

DrRichardCranium · 1 month

Yeah, I was being a bit facetious with that comment as I know pension programs can be hideously expensive. Still, I'm not sure I agree with your point that reducing executive compensation won't help the employees.

For instance, if his compensation was more in line with other CEOs at $10mpa, an additional ~$780pa could go to each employee. That $780 is going to mean a lot more to those individual employees (equivalent to a ~3% raise on a $24k salary) than those $40mpa will to the CEO. It's not something to retire on, sure, but it provides significantly more life security than before if you're that low on the pay scale. And considering that they are in medicine distribution, I would hazard a guess that a large fraction of their employees are in wage tiers that low. Even if the average salary across the company is $50k, which seems improbably high, he's being paid 1,000-fold more than his employees.

The huge compensation isn't a lot when spread over everyone at the company, but a more equitable distribution is emphatically not meaningless. Moreover, it's a very powerful symbol that the shareholders and employees don't much matter to the executives or the board. Cutting the pension plan but taking a huge compensation package home is completely legal and utterly immoral.

Regarding the options, and this is not something I'm terribly familiar with, but if the employees still had a pension plan wouldn't those options dilute the value of their 401(k)s? It sounds like it takes a bite out of a lot of ordinary investors through their mutual fund investments, in any case.

Edit: Bah, reddit markup failure

DrRichardCranium · 1 month

You and your co-workers are pretty fortunate, s/he sounds like a very decent person.

StephensonB · 1 month

I see your point that perhaps jail time is not the appropriate punishment, but I strongly disagree that the revelation of one's health records is 'trivial'. Imagine being outed as having HIV in the early 80s? Imagine being a Jehovah's witness today being outed as receiving a blood transfusion in order to save their life? A transsexual who has undergone gender-reassignment surgery?

The doctor-patient relationship is a sensitive, legally-privileged one for very good reason--medical care simply doesn't work without complete candor. It must feel like the worst kind of violation to have sensitive personal information given in confidence aired to others, and it can very easily destroy lives.

The Shasta system is likely liable for big monetary damages, yes. But the CMO and CEO very specifically maliciously violated a patient's right to privacy to partially cover up their own prior healthcare fraud. That's absolutely an aggravating condition; they should have two books thrown at them.

DrRichardCranium · 1 month

Completely agree. It's a little sad that an executive taking this kind of direct responsibility for his company's health and his employees is an international news story.

DrRichardCranium · 1 month

I'm leaning towards dick. The article says they dropped the pension program for all employees save the executives. I'd guess they could fund their pension program if they cut his compensation by half.

Another_by_Gin · 1 month

Couldn't say; there are those who don't like that men can be held accountable for sex while intoxicated by women who are also intoxicated. It does smack of sex automatically being 'perpetrated' by the male in what seems like a consensual situation.

To the downvoters:
Really what it boils down to is that an intoxicated person may be simultaneously not competent to give consent to sex while legally culpable if initiating sex. It revolves around the idea that positive action (asking or taking sex) requires stronger accountability than negative or passive action (accepting or refusing sex), since it requires greater initiative and can directly affect another person. The plain truth is that while the accusation of rape can just as easily go the other way, where a drunk woman rapes a drunk man, it's less common and therefore seems unequal.

Panda_Bowl · 1 month

I suppose not everyone's talented enough to fit it into their decor.

Panda_Bowl · 1 month

It's a little funky looking, but the In-Win BUC got a great review at Anandtech.

boudy077 · 1 month

Thanks for the great reply. It might also help to have a short discussion of the various types of hypersensitivities to illustrate the various immune responses that we lump into "allergies and autoimmune diseases".

Another_by_Gin · 1 month

I see, I didn't realize you were actually awake. Still, you're would be ruled incompetent to give consent in such a condition, so the legel aspect doesn't change.

You don't seem too shaken by it, so I guess just make sure he understands that his actions were not okay. You're also justified in asking him to split cleanup costs--Plan B, STD screen, abortion (hopefully not necessary), or whatever.

Another_by_Gin · 1 month

Being drunk typically isn't a defensible excuse; he's still responsible for his actions. Furthermore, if you were completely out he could not have possibly asked if you were interested in having sex, let alone unprotected sex. He might point out that you were both drunk and he shouldn't be solely to blame, but the difference between you two is that you went to sleep it off and he went ahead and had nonconsensual sex with an unconscious person.

Edit: Even if you're not interested in pressing charges, you need to make it very clear that his actions fall under the definition of rape. If he were to do this to another person, they might not be so understanding.

Another_by_Gin · 1 month

Uh, that sounds like rape to me. I think you need to have a very serious talk with said friend.

DrRichardCranium · 1 month

Look for "Complications" by Atul Gawande. Really excellent read, and written when he was a resident no less. Incredibly impressive.

DrRichardCranium · 1 month

Look for "Complications" by Atul Gawande. Really excellent read, and written when he was a resident no less. Incredibly impressive.

Amrosorma · 1 month

Sorry to drop in on this thread way late! Since it looks like you're going for a high-tech battle armor and mechy setting, I think I like a modified, simplified version of how Battletech handles mech loadouts with a little bit of physics interaction.

Instead of classes, have light/medium/heavy hulls/armors that have different limits on equipment slots, loadout weight, thrust, ammo capacity, w/e. Let players add whatever equipment they like to the hull with the understanding that the weight of each add-on reduces their thrust/weight ratio and constrains the weight of each additional add-on. That BFG might mean you can't take both the heavy armor and an accessory ammo rack, but you could also leave that space empty to improve your speed or jetpack range. Make all weapons and equipment have distinctive, obvious profiles and appearance (RL is a huge multitube box with different ammo giving off different color projectiles; shotgun is a short, fat cylinder; ECM system is a pair of big bright tesla towers when not active (and brightness=charge?); jetpack looks like a Saturn V; glider wings look like glider wings, and so forth). In terms of balancing, I'd hope that the real meat of teach team would be the mediums, with the heavy and lights being much more situational and specialized.

I love the idea of this system because it feels like a way to allow incredible latitude in loadout and play style while providing inherent balancing. For instance, you can be a zippy light character dropping sensors/spotting for artillery/and flag-capping or a slower light with a medium-size gun playing a harasser/headhunter. It definitely makes loadout selection more technical (and therefore less accessible), but I think that only makes it more involving and interesting -- your personal mech (loadout) is definitively your own.

Four-Year Club	Best Comment 2010-07-16
Verified Email	Bellwether 2010-01-15

Rivensteel

TROPHY CASE

Rivensteel

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login