Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[GasBandit]

In wake of Hobby Lobby ruling, Religious Orgs want exemption from LGBT Hiring Order.

Because of course they do. THIS is what happens when intolerance in enshrined in the law.

Those organizations are clearly in the wrong. It is to be expected that someone would try to push beyond the decision, and this is why clear demarcations are important.

Fortunately, the action they've taken is to write Obama a letter, which he can simply ignore. In fact, I wonder if they actually thought they would get any traction taking this action, or if they just plan to use their inevitable rejection as some kind of misguided turbo pseudochristian bigotry rallying cry.

 

[Espy]

But this seems to be the problem right? Why are their "deeply held religious beliefs" less important than Hobby Lobby's?

 

[GasBandit]

But this seems to be the problem right? Why are their "deeply held religious beliefs" less important than Hobby Lobby's?

Hobby Lobby's claim is different, as Stienman noted. There's a difference between being required to provide a service that conflicts with your religion, and using religion as a basis for overt discrimination (as he said, civil rights usually trump 1st amendment rights in court).

 

[Bubble181]

The truth is though that I don't think vacation should be mandatory. I think any serious business who needs employees with in demand skills will always give people vacation time, but really I don't think it should be mandated. Some people seem to think its a basic human right.

The only right I really believe in is your right to self determination. All the other shit is just window dressing. That said I still vote democratic most of the time side republican policies are so focused on ideological legislation that they ignore the realities they are working in.

[...]

Game theory states that the logical answer is to rat. But it misses something, in reality these prisoners would have seen this eventuality and either had a strong enough trust of each other, or systems in place (like I will kill your family if you rat), to encourage the no rat scenario.

1. Thank goodness everybody has 'in demand skills', the means to acquire them, and legal, financial and mental health to fight and look elsewhere when needed. Sweat shops and slavery don't exist in thewhole wide world, because obviously bad employers don't last long.
I think the Belgian (to take an example) system provides too much and is stifling industry, up to a point....But do you really think people with the mental level of, say, Forrest Gump, deserve to be forced to work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, for housing and board, with no off time, no vacation? You're a monster. And if you don't think so, but still say vacation and working hours regulations aren't basic rights but should be personally negotiated, you're blind and/or ignorant to realities in different countries and for different people.

2. I do'nt know where you learned game theory, but the "right" answer isn't to rat. Game theory mainly teaches you you can't decide the prisoner's dilemma without more info, but if you have none, the right response is a sympathetic tit-for-tat. Don't rat, unless the other has ratted before or is more likely to rat for another reason.

 

[jwhouk]

The next thought after that is, "why should anyone have days off?"

Slippery slope back to semi-indentured servitude.

 

[GasBandit]

1. Thank goodness everybody has 'in demand skills', the means to acquire them, and legal, financial and mental health to fight and look elsewhere when needed. Sweat shops and slavery don't exist in thewhole wide world, because obviously bad employers don't last long.
I think the Belgian (to take an example) system provides too much and is stifling industry, up to a point....But do you really think people with the mental level of, say, Forrest Gump, deserve to be forced to work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, for housing and board, with no off time, no vacation? You're a monster. And if you don't think so, but still say vacation and working hours regulations aren't basic rights but should be personally negotiated, you're blind and/or ignorant to realities in different countries and for different people.

2. I do'nt know where you learned game theory, but the "right" answer isn't to rat. Game theory mainly teaches you you can't decide the prisoner's dilemma without more info, but if you have none, the right response is a sympathetic tit-for-tat. Don't rat, unless the other has ratted before or is more likely to rat for another reason.

One of the things I chuckle over most is how much some Europeans think paid vacation is a basic human right. America doesn't have mandatory vacation time, but market competition for employees means it's pretty much standard for all full time employees, like health insurance/dental insurance etc. I supposedly get 2 weeks paid vacation a year, not that I use it (I think I usually take off one week every other year or so). We also generally get paid sick days and even a few paid "personal days." Not because the government mandated it, but because businesses know that they have to compete with other businesses for employees. There are also labor laws to punish exploitative labor practice, so practically nobody works "7 days a week 12 hours a day." Usually because the boss doesn't want to pay the overtime. Even Texas says you get time and a half after 8 hours in 1 day or 40 hours in 1 week. So occasionally you do find somebody who works that much, but it's because they want to and their employer values them enough to pay them 50% extra.

 

[Espy]

The next thought after that is, "why should anyone have days off?"

Slippery slope back to semi-indentured servitude.

Hey, if you want a day off then you can go find a different job right? It's that easy.

 

[Eriol]

Most of the abuses of capitalism is when there is a surplus of labour. Most of the virtues (to labour) come when there is a shortage of it. Right now there's an excess. Especially in the unskilled areas. If only there was a way to cut off the supply of totally unskilled people so that there is demand there again... (I'm looking at you, Temporary Foreign Workers Program - Canada btw). USA may have a "different" infinite unskilled labour problem.

 

[Necronic]

1. Thank goodness everybody has 'in demand skills', the means to acquire them, and legal, financial and mental health to fight and look elsewhere when needed. Sweat shops and slavery don't exist in thewhole wide world, because obviously bad employers don't last long.

I don't think that mandating vacations should be the way to resolve this. I do think that the government should pay for in demand college educations. Vacation pay is symptomatic and doesn't actually resolve the underlying problem (social mobility).

I think the Belgian (to take an example) system provides too much and is stifling industry, up to a point....But do you really think people with the mental level of, say, Forrest Gump, deserve to be forced to work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, for housing and board, with no off time, no vacation? You're a monster. And if you don't think so, but still say vacation and working hours regulations aren't basic rights but should be personally negotiated, you're blind and/or ignorant to realities in different countries and for different people.

I like how you took my single comment on vacation in the US and extrapolated that to slave labor. Because that's not at all what I was saying. I do think that certain holidays should be mandatory (like Labor day). I think that the 8 hour work day/40 hour week/overtime system is good. And Forest Gump? Really. Ignoring for a moment the fact that I work regularly with people with disabilities, lets just go ahead and quash this new form of Godwin right now. That question (how should you regulate and manage pay for people with disabilities) is actually remarkably complex and problematic. So please don't simplify it and toss it out as a cheap rhetorical device.

Finally, I am not talking about other countries. I am talking about mine. There are far more important issues in places like Rawanda than dealing with vacation days. Maybe you guys should go down there and teach them the value of vacation days? I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms. You wonder why people like GB and I roll our eyes so hard at European socialism.

Ed: if you think the Rwanda comment was harsh then you know how I feel being accused of supporting the exploitation of the mentally handicapped.

2. I do'nt know where you learned game theory, but the "right" answer isn't to rat. Game theory mainly teaches you you can't decide the prisoner's dilemma without more info, but if you have none, the right response is a sympathetic tit-for-tat. Don't rat, unless the other has ratted before or is more likely to rat for another reason.

I hate to be that guy, but straight from Wikipedia

It is implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get, and that their decision will not affect their reputation in the future. Because betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with them, all purely rational self-interested prisoners would betray the other, and so the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other.[1]

The next sentence based on more realistic but complex human nature, highlights exactly what I was saying about the more complicated system showing that the answer

The interesting part of this result is that pursuing individual reward logically leads both of the prisoners to betray, when they would get a better reward if they both cooperated. In reality, humans display a systematic bias towards cooperative behavior in this and similar games, much more so than predicted by simple models of "rational" self-interested action.[2][3][4][5] A model based on a different kind of rationality, where people forecast how the game would be played if they formed coalitions and then they maximize their forecasts, has been shown to make better predictions of the rate of cooperation in this and similar games given only the payoffs of the game.[6]

Honest to god, I did not read the wiki before I made my comment, but its saying pretty much EXACTLY what I said. With no additional information/purely rational though the correct decision is to rat. However with a more complex less idealized model the situation becomes more complex.

 

[Bubble181]

One of the things I chuckle over most is how much some Europeans think paid vacation is a basic human right. America doesn't have mandatory vacation time, but market competition for employees means it's pretty much standard for all full time employees, like health insurance/dental insurance etc. I supposedly get 2 weeks paid vacation a year, not that I use it (I think I usually take off one week every other year or so). We also generally get paid sick days and even a few paid "personal days." Not because the government mandated it, but because businesses know that they have to compete with other businesses for employees. There are also labor laws to punish exploitative labor practice, so practically nobody works "7 days a week 12 hours a day." Usually because the boss doesn't want to pay the overtime. Even Texas says you get time and a half after 8 hours in 1 day or 40 hours in 1 week. So occasionally you do find somebody who works that much, but it's because they want to and their employer values them enough to pay them 50% extra.

You're missing my point. I didn't say "paid vacation" (I don't get sick days without doctor's note and even so, unpaid, and I don't get "personal days" - it's unheard of in Belgium - that's what your vacation time's for, btw...And we only get overtime after 60 hours a week or 12+ hours a day. Texas is a semi-socialist worker's paradise! ). And it's all well and good to talk about "pretty much standard" for "most" people. That's the discussion. Is it a basic human right to have a guaranteed minimum amount of time per year you can spend not-under-control-of-the-boss.
Remeber where these laws came from: in 1900, it was fairly common for a labourer in the twine industry in Belgium to be paid in private coin: you were paid in currency that was only accepted by the boss' shop, his bar, his baker and his grocer. You worked 6 days a week, and on Sunday you had to go to his church, located in his privately owned neighbourhood. Usually the rest of the Sunday would be spent at the same bar, finishing anything you have left from your "income" on beer. They were technically free men and women, but if literally everything you own is bought from shops owned by the same person paying your wage, and you're not allowed to even leave their private property, have no clothes of your own, no money, and of course no education and medicinal care, that person has complete control over you. It goes beyond indentured servant and well into wage slave territory - and these were the supposedly "humane" catholic bosses! (the liberal/anti-catholic ones were in practice slightly better, as they usually stuck to paying in actual money, which gave at least some liberty. Unfortunately, they also tended to pay less, which meant it was perfectly possible to starve to death while working 14h a day, 6 days a week).

Saying people have a basic human right to time spent away from their job is important because it prevents sweat shops and sex/human/etc slavery(-in-all-but-name). If "the market" self-corrected to everyone having a living wage, we wouldn't be wearing made-in-China sneakers while listening to made-in-Taiwan iPods, looking through made-in-Bangladesh sunglasses.

Yes, I've heard Belgian left politicians honestly and openly saying they think the "right to vacation" means everyone should have the means to go abroad (not as hard in Belgium as in the US, of course ) for a week a year (it was in a discussion about welfare and minimum wage - "even the lowest-paid should be able to see the sea or the mountains once a year"). Those are complete idiots and the type of left you like to rail against. Remeber, I'm considered moderate-to-extreme right over here. However, the opposite - we do'nt need no vacation, the market'll sort it out - may work fine for the higher-educated in the rich parts of the world, it very obviously didn't and doesn't work for those at the bottom of the production chain.

 

[Necronic]

Company towns are very fucked up and I'm glad they are gone. There are other issues that I find similarly fucked up and predatory, like unpaid overtime, but those are (thankfully) illegal.

If I were to look for two labor oriented issues that are far more pressing than vacation days it would be the exploitation of illegal immigrants and the "unpaid itern" system. The latter is a lot less serious than the former, but forte life of me I don't see how the whole intern thing is legal.

Ed: hmm, unpaid vacation. I agree, maybe some amount of it should be somewhat mandatory. That said I have never worked anywhere where that wasn an option and I've worked in some real shitholes. I think it may be a bit of a non-issue.

 

[GasBandit]

You're missing my point. I didn't say "paid vacation" (I don't get sick days without doctor's note and even so, unpaid, and I don't get "personal days" - it's unheard of in Belgium - that's what your vacation time's for, btw...And we only get overtime after 60 hours a week or 12+ hours a day. Texas is a semi-socialist worker's paradise! ). And it's all well and good to talk about "pretty much standard" for "most" people. That's the discussion. Is it a basic human right to have a guaranteed minimum amount of time per year you can spend not-under-control-of-the-boss.
Remeber where these laws came from: in 1900, it was fairly common for a labourer in the twine industry in Belgium to be paid in private coin: you were paid in currency that was only accepted by the boss' shop, his bar, his baker and his grocer. You worked 6 days a week, and on Sunday you had to go to his church, located in his privately owned neighbourhood. Usually the rest of the Sunday would be spent at the same bar, finishing anything you have left from your "income" on beer. They were technically free men and women, but if literally everything you own is bought from shops owned by the same person paying your wage, and you're not allowed to even leave their private property, have no clothes of your own, no money, and of course no education and medicinal care, that person has complete control over you. It goes beyond indentured servant and well into wage slave territory - and these were the supposedly "humane" catholic bosses! (the liberal/anti-catholic ones were in practice slightly better, as they usually stuck to paying in actual money, which gave at least some liberty. Unfortunately, they also tended to pay less, which meant it was perfectly possible to starve to death while working 14h a day, 6 days a week).

Saying people have a basic human right to time spent away from their job is important because it prevents sweat shops and sex/human/etc slavery(-in-all-but-name). If "the market" self-corrected to everyone having a living wage, we wouldn't be wearing made-in-China sneakers while listening to made-in-Taiwan iPods, looking through made-in-Bangladesh sunglasses.

Yes, I've heard Belgian left politicians honestly and openly saying they think the "right to vacation" means everyone should have the means to go abroad (not as hard in Belgium as in the US, of course ) for a week a year (it was in a discussion about welfare and minimum wage - "even the lowest-paid should be able to see the sea or the mountains once a year"). Those are complete idiots and the type of left you like to rail against. Remeber, I'm considered moderate-to-extreme right over here. However, the opposite - we do'nt need no vacation, the market'll sort it out - may work fine for the higher-educated in the rich parts of the world, it very obviously didn't and doesn't work for those at the bottom of the production chain.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I didn't the first time because the problem you describe is pretty much unheard of here (outside of the game development industry) - in fact, more often the opposite is the case: low skill employees who want to work MORE hours (to make more money) but aren't given the work hours because the boss doesn't want to pay for them. I've seen it happen even where I work with some of our part timers getting chewed out for working too many hours. I even once saw a guy get fired because he routinely (of his own volition) put in 60+ hour weeks, week after week, month after month - I think he was borderline autistic though, and didn't have much of a life outside of work.

So the reality of the situation is, even here in the wild, untamed, allegedly-free-market United States, time away from work isn't an issue. Even taking the "chinese sweat shop" examples you show into account doesn't really track - for all the american outcry over conditions in foxconn factories, chinese workers claw their way over their countrymen to work there. I don't think "vacation time" is the issue with sex slavery or human trafficking, as well, and I fail to see how minimum time off statutes would help prevent something that is already extremely illegal just in and of itself.

 

[Necronic]

I'll be honest when I was a sex slave time off was one of my biggest complaints.

Ed: Or as Fry put it

"You know what the worst thing about being a slave is? The hours."

 

[PatrThom]

I wonder what percentage of the US work force is incapable of managing their own life, requiring government intervention.

Not so much "incapable" as "pathologically unwilling," I think. A great many people in this country seem to be afflicted by Scarlett O'Hara fever* or something.

--Patrick
*I'm sure someone will explain it if you don't get it.

 

[GasBandit]

AKA "Failiure to Launch."

 

[Necronic]

Jesus....just had that argument about communism with someone where they say that Stalin/Mao/Kim Jong's governments aren't actually communists so they aren evidence of failure of communism.

I mean, I get the argument, in their mind it's only communism if it's successful.

 

[AshburnerX]

Stalin failed because he was more concerned with not having Russia become a battlefield again. Considering how many Russians have died during the 19th and 20th centuries due to war on their own turf, this was a justifiable concern. Too bad he spent his focus on selling AKs instead of raising crops.

Kim il Sung and his descendants failed because they were fascists, not communists, and because they alienated anyone who would have wanted to work with them. North Korea only exists because China doesn't want a puppet state next door and because South Korea doesn't want to deal with millions of starving, brainwashed NKs.

China hasn't failed... at all. Yes, it's horribly repressive on some levels and has done TERRIBLE things to it's population in the past but you can't deny it's economic successes and quickly rising standard of living. It's simply in a transition phase... slowly modifying communism into a 21st century political system that will work for their country. Only time will tell if it works or if they'll have a bloody revolution.

And really, NONE of this would have happened if Stalin hadn't been a fascist. Lenin wasn't nearly as strong-handed and his example may have lead to a more peaceful style of communism than Stalin put forth. We probably wouldn't have had the Cold War ether.

 

[Necronic]

But China's rising standard of living seems to be pretty directly correlated with its economic liberalization

 

[AshburnerX]

But China's rising standard of living seems to be pretty directly correlated with its economic liberalization

Like I said, China is modifying communism to suit it's needs. By the time it is done, it may be a wholly new political system. But it's still very much a tightly controlled economy at the moment.

 

[PatrThom]

But China's rising standard of living seems to be pretty directly correlated with its economic liberalization

People suddenly have means, and now they wish to exercise their power as consumers. "Let me spend!"

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

Source: http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/22/george-washington-boozehound

 

[Necronic]

Cool article hear about some well executed fiscal socialism

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26085784/colorado-teen-birth-rates-drop-state-hands-out?ok

The family-planning program has saved $5.68 in Medicaid costs for every dollar spent on the contraceptives, the state said. The state has saved millions in health care expenditures — $42.5 million in public funds in 2010 alone based on the latest available data.

 

[Necronic]

Interesting article about US vs China.

http://theweek.com/article/index/264032/china-thinks-it-can-defeat-america-in-battle

 

[Necronic]

Fox and Friends' Keith Ablow had a really intelligent commentary on gay marriage

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/...and-dog-marriage/?onswipe_redirect=no&oswrr=1

Unsurprisingly it involves a dog.

 

[GasBandit]

I say we just deinstitutionalize marriage.

 

[Adam]

I can't wait to get married again!









And lose half my net worth.

 

[Covar]

The reason the state incentivizes marriage, as I see it, is to provide for the raising of the next generation. The rules of inheritance, medical decisions, joint filing, etc, all help couples who raise children. When one dies, their stuff goes to the family. It allows the situation where if desired, one can stay home and take the major responsibility of raising children while the other works.

Let's say you remove state recognized marriage altogether.

Medical decisions for the children not only become more hairy, but so do decisions when one partner becomes unable to make decisions for themselves. Do the children decide? Does the other partner? Do the parents of the person who is ill get a vote?

Ultimately, while the children are young, it's in the state's interest to make the choice that would best benefit the children. But what if that's at odds with the partner?

What happens during separation? Since there's no formal recognition of marriage, then there's no foundation to base child custody on. Either party can claim, and attempt to back up, how their new situation will be better for the children than their ex-partner's situation.

In other words it's already a big issue for those people with children who chose not to marry. It's not intractable, but it's a huge drain on our courts and society.

I know society is all about making marriage into a union of two people that love each other, but the laws are actually designed around the idea that marriage is about starting a family - having and raising children.

"Let's deinstutionalize marriage" is equivalent to saying, "Let's remove the incentive to have and raise a family, and remove the security and stability from children that a state-recognized marriage provides"

And I know a lot of people will disagree on what marriage is these days, and whether the government should recognize it at all, but I don't think a society that puts children at such a disadvantage is going to succeed in the long run.

Civil Unions for all.

 

[PatrThom]

I don't think a society that puts children at such a disadvantage is going to succeed in the long run.

This only matters if we can get more people to recognize that long-term thinking is actually important, and maybe we should make sure there will be a future for our children.

--Patrick

 

[Necronic]

maybe we should make sure there will be a future for our children.

--Patrick

 

[jwhouk]

I say we just deinstitutionalize marriage.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Sorry, Gas, but marriage falls under "general welfare".

 

[GasBandit]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Sorry, Gas, but marriage falls under "general welfare".

How, exactly?

The reason the state incentivizes marriage, as I see it, is to provide for the raising of the next generation. The rules of inheritance, medical decisions, joint filing, etc, all help couples who raise children. When one dies, their stuff goes to the family. It allows the situation where if desired, one can stay home and take the major responsibility of raising children while the other works.

Let's say you remove state recognized marriage altogether.

Medical decisions for the children not only become more hairy, but so do decisions when one partner becomes unable to make decisions for themselves. Do the children decide? Does the other partner? Do the parents of the person who is ill get a vote?

Ultimately, while the children are young, it's in the state's interest to make the choice that would best benefit the children. But what if that's at odds with the partner?

What happens during separation? Since there's no formal recognition of marriage, then there's no foundation to base child custody on. Either party can claim, and attempt to back up, how their new situation will be better for the children than their ex-partner's situation.

In other words it's already a big issue for those people with children who chose not to marry. It's not intractable, but it's a huge drain on our courts and society.

I know society is all about making marriage into a union of two people that love each other, but the laws are actually designed around the idea that marriage is about starting a family - having and raising children.

"Let's deinstutionalize marriage" is equivalent to saying, "Let's remove the incentive to have and raise a family, and remove the security and stability from children that a state-recognized marriage provides"

And I know a lot of people will disagree on what marriage is these days, and whether the government should recognize it at all, but I don't think a society that puts children at such a disadvantage is going to succeed in the long run.

The "partner" situation illustrates the need for a living will. As for the children, there are plenty of protracted custody battles in divorces already. I don't see that being made any better or worse. As for "removing the incentive," apparently marriage is no longer prerequisite to having kids. Besides, if family security and stability was really the litmus test for marriage law, there wouldn't be so much trouble being polygamist.

I'm probably not in a place right now, however, to have a reasonable discussion about the institution of marriage and its worth/efficacy. So maybe it'd be best if I just recuse myself from this particular discussion.

 

[jwhouk]

1. Health issues.
2. Tax incentives (Or disincentives).
3. Children.
4. Children.
5. Did I mention CHILDREN?
6. Estate rights (as you point out; it's messy, for certain, and does need fixing, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water).
7. Speaking of babies: CHILDREN!

 

[Espy]

As stated there are a ton of reasons why it is good for marriage (or civil unions, call them whatever you want) to be something recognized by the government. However, whats really at issue here is who gets those rights, correct? I mean, look, no matter what we want marriage, as a government institution isn't going away. So it's kind of a moot argument.

 

[PatrThom]

if family security and stability was really the litmus test for marriage law, there wouldn't be so much trouble being polygamist.

I'm sure that, religious reasons aside, the state is happy to discourage polyamory/polygamy just due to all the complications it would introduce into succession/property/etc.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

1. Health issues.
2. Tax incentives (Or disincentives).
3. Children.
4. Children.
5. Did I mention CHILDREN?
6. Estate rights (as you point out; it's messy, for certain, and does need fixing, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water).
7. Speaking of babies: CHILDREN!

People have children regardless of marriage all the time. Just repeating the word over and over again makes it sound a little bit like the Helen Lovejoy fallacy.