So you're in the less-rapid monopoly camp of technocratic capitalism. That's cool. What you're saying is that small businesses should have leverage over labor to keep large organizations from overrunning them. That it is the role of the state to protect small businesses from large ones.
checks and minimum wage not yet passing through Congress is definitely the WH's fault. Good call "Best Meme Page" on Instagram.
It is a judgment, though not a moral one. I think it's telling anytime people get deep into the weeds of technocratic market management. There's a huge slew of assumptions packed in, and then all the variance comes in a small band of what 'should' be managed.
Don't Republican Presidents basically demand subservience from the legislature? Trump literally made them grovel like dogs, which let's not forget was hilarious.
I didn't say that. I didn't take a stance. I just shared a different example to provide more context to the conversation so that people weren't thinking this wasn't a black and white situation...owner bad, employee good. There are literally some employees who have enough power that they have just as much control as an owner may, especially in a small company when secrets are shared. I honestly don't know how I feel. For selfish reasons I would feel better about the stance you just described, but in general I am not someone who always bows to selfish motivations, and we don't have non-competes except for owners (which I don't think you would object to), so I don't practice what you described. I strongly believe it is the company's responsibility to keep employees happy and engaged and give them a reason to want to work for you and do their best. I also think the company should be responsible to the world more broadly. I am more of a social capitalist. That said, I also recognize that the rules we live by make it challenging at times to keep the higher level employees if someone just wants to throw money at them for your secrets. I won't lie and say it doesn't hurt when that happens.
This. They pretty much always only work in one direction, and they discourage market disruption/entrepreneurship.
As a lame duck versus as an incoming president. Those are definitely the same. Edit: and with one chamber.
I appreciate the candor, and I'm not trying to police your worldview. I can tell you're a 'social capitalist' by your approach to the convo. That's all I was getting at.
One slight nuance (although it may not be that important)...I am not sure if I am a social capitalist, as I am always open to change and better ideas. I honestly am not knowledgeable enough about what is out there philosophically to say that there are not better ways. I think it makes more objective sense to say I run my business more like a social capitalist under the rules that we have to play by right now.
'No, that example doesn't count!' https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...order-wall-funding-averts-government-shutdown https://www.rollcall.com/2018/03/23/after-self-created-drama-trump-signs-omnibus/ https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/22/gop-congress-spending-spree-440005 https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/01/nih-funding-congress-trump/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...er-vote-trump-border-wall-funding/2443053001/
Yeah, I think most educated business owners and high level laborers feel this way these days. It's the steady influence of cultural capital, as college educations in the neoliberal era have leaned into individual responsibility, CSR, the triple bottom line, and so on as the solutions in lieu of collective action from labor or top down rules from government. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work. The triple bottom line is pure ideology. When push comes to shove, any entity will opt for the financial incentive over social or environmental decision making, especially if it's publicly traded or small enough that the proprietor depends on a level of profits for their income.
Do you have a cognitive disorder that affects your social interactions? First, I didn't mean to imply that Republican presidents get perfect compliance from the legislature. But I think GOP party discipline is stronger for them than it is for Dems, as seen by the Party's ability to pursue its agenda. Note that isn't limited to Trump. Some might point out that the border wall was red meat distractionism and the legislature departed from Trump on that point because the rest of the agenda was acceptable to the GOP's agenda as a whole. Second, if you're suggesting that the GOP was actually fractured and resisted Trump's (or W's) agenda, then you have a problem with your Democratic campaign narrative that the entire GOP is complicit in Trumpism, fascism, blah blah blah.
Better than nothing, but pretty classic of Congress to concoct some work around instead of just being able to pass a simple minimum wage increase (albeit attempting to do it via the covid relief package.) Given the recent changes by Wal-mart, Amazon, and Costco, seems like they know the iron is hot and the time to strike is right fucking now.
moving the goalposts is fine Mick. No one on planet Earth is arguing your second sentence. But that isn't what you said.
The meme posted by proud boy Dump showed the WH fucking up minimum wage and stimulus checks. Now you are saying Democrats in general lack party discipline in comparison to Republicans. So the meme is still wildly inaccurate? How is the well-known nature of congressional democrats the fault of Biden? At saying "I didn't use the word perfect!" when presented with multiple examples of the GOP rebuffing Trump.
I believe non-competes are unpalatable. The entire conceit of capitalism is that it works due to competition and free markets. Non-compete clauses are (as their name implies) anti-competitive and a restriction on the labor market. I would hope that most people in this thread would line up against the wealthy capital holders engaging in anti-competitive activities to the detriment of labor. But I guess not.
I definitely understand why much more often than not (especially with publicly traded entities) you would be correct about the last statement, and maybe I am just a fucking sucker for trying to balance things out. So far we have managed to make it work for almost 20 years, and I feel more rewarded personally when I make a positive impact on my employees life than when I take home a slightly larger paycheck. At our size the amount of time spent on the planet is relatively small, but I think we do a good job of balancing profits and people. We have a 98% employee retention rate and I genuinely get as much enjoyment out of knowing and caring about the people I work with as I do taking home a paycheck for it. Now you have me concerned that it will all come crashing down, LOL.
Ok, sorry, it seemed like you were saying I posted a meme. I was confused. I'm sorry I tried to engage with you, as you are fucking impossible to talk to.
I think most people do. You are making a subjective assumption though... the wealthy capital holders engaging in anti-competitive active to the detriment of labor. Why is the assumption that anyone who holds a non-compete is the "wealthy capital holder"? This situation can literally be the opposite. There are situations where the wealthier individual could be the employee, and the wealthier capital holder could be the other company. I was just trying to make people realize it is not as simple as it would appear. Yes, I generally do line up against the situation you describe.
Just to recap: Biden has not been effective at whipping votes for his agenda in Congress That isn't actually a criticism because Democrats have no party discipline Republicans have better party discipline But Republicans don't have perfect party discipline Support the Democrats
Clearly they've moved on, so I get the move re: not overruling the parliamentarian. But the WH should be coming out saying that $15.00 minimum wage is something that must occur, one way or another, this year.
sry Dump i only checked the most recent page before posting and then saw you had already posted a different version. devastating, but i'm leaving it up so that i can grow from this error
Sure, but my whole point earlier is that Manchin and Sinema have even less of a reason to vote against it if it's not tied to a widely popular stimulus bill. The Dems look like absolute shit because of this and I think it's not going to be any easier for them to get it through later.
The business owner being less wealthy than the employee is an exception that is irrelevant. As is which business owner in the discussion is more wealthy. The issue is competition and empowering labor. Non-compete clauses intentionally limit competition and disempower labor. They serve to prop up companies that can’t compete in a fair labor market. Worst of all, California shows that businesses can and do thrive without them. They are punitive and unnecessary. They are bad.
That may very well be true. Although I am hopeful that public pressure can get them to buckle beyond this bill. Probably pie-in-the-sky view. But hopeful that public support can get over 70 percent (currently at 59% according to Reuters). Regardless, I don't disagree that this may have been the best shot to get it done. Sinema being Manchin-lite is not something I was aware of until 2021. Extremely frustrating.
There is a place for noncompetes, but they are overused. Companies shouldn’t be able to buy the confidential business strategies of their competitors simply by offering a key employee a higher salary to provide that info. Companies also shouldn’t be tying to mid level employees on noncompetes.
We specifically argue fairly regularly. That's okay. Some would say that's why we come to TMB and jump into political threads. Saying stuff like "what the fuck is your diagnosis" is pretty fucking lame
Democrats are better humans. Republicans are better politicians. Dems care too much about rules and bipartisanship and making everyone happy. Fuck that. Jam your shit through and make them deal with it. We all know the Republicans do it when they have the opportunity. It feels gross saying this but the Dems need their own version of Mitch, a slimy fuck that will get what he wants, one way or another.
This isn’t a sustainable business practice for any but the largest corporations and that behavior should be addressed by antitrust laws when it happens there.
How often is the parliamentarian over ruled? Honestly, rules and norms dont fucking matter and it’s pretty righteous to ignore them when helping people as opposed to lifting up avowed white nationalism.
i'm torn on noncompetes on one hand, i get them from a business owner POV (specifically in my field), since a good AM would absolutely be able to pillage their old clients once they changed companies on the other hand, it completely fucks over employees who have only worked in that industry and it pigeonholes them into only being able to work for their current company. i've had friends who worked for 15+ years at my old company afraid to leave because they don't have experience doing anything else, and they can't uproot their family to move to a different state.
Then interact in a remotely normal fashion. Quit mashing emojis into every post, editing posts over and over mid convo, and doing puerile half-quotes that misrepresent the point mid discussion. Notice how I had a parallel discussion with someone else without that.