|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Get butts to the polls is nearly everything. I’m active with the Dems in rural Texas. We have pretty high percentages of registered votes here, but abysmal turnout, particularly among Latinos and under-forties. Old Republican geezers turn out very reliably.
I hereby solicit ideas on attracting non-Republican non-geezers to show up and give voting a shot. Maybe our primary elections, just around the corner now, will give me a little hope, but I’m not betting on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Coragyps writes: I hereby solicit ideas on attracting non-Republican non-geezers to show up and give voting a shot. Unfortunately the best idea I know of is to persuade more women, Latinos and younger candidates to run for offices. And now is the time to start recruiting for the next cycle; too late for this one. That does assume that there will be a next cycle and I'm not totally convinced that will happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
This isn't really a reply. I'm mostly just riffing off a couple things you said.
Hyroglyphx writes: They also have massive perks, like stock options that you mentioned which pay handsome dividends or sell for thousands of dollars per share. About the stock options, ESPP plans allow employees to have money deducted (up to 15% I think) from their salary each pay period to purchase company stock at a discount once or twice a year. A common discount is 85% of the lowest price over the past couple years. The stock price only affects how many shares are purchased, not the paper profit. If you had $5000 deducted and a strike stock price of $58.80/share then 85% of that is $50/share and you purchase 100 shares of stock. If the current stock price is $80/share then the value of your ESPP shares is $8000 and you've just made $3000 on paper. If the stock price were instead $5880/share then you'd purchase 1 share at $5000 and the paper value is still $8000 and still a paper profit of $3000. The stock price has no influence over how much money is made on ESPP shares. If you're instead given stock options, which had already become rare when I retired about six years ago, then they're at a specific price per share, and they typically vest (become available to you to exercise) over a period of 4 or 5 years. It used to be considered an effective employee retention strategy, since the options become void when one leaves the company. A problem with stock options is that they can go underwater (the company's stock price drops below the option price). This was a big problem during the 2008 financial collapse and after and led many hi-tech companies to abandon them. In their place came stock grants. You're effectively given the shares, they usually vest over 4-5 years, and the purchase price is $0. Because of the low purchase price the number of shares involved in stock grants is typically lower than with stock options, probably around 20% as many shares. The current stock prices of Facebook and Google are $214 and $1519 respectively.
Everything is designed around the comfort and happiness of the employee. "Sweatshop conditions?" I actually couldn't think of two companies that are more the antithesis of what a sweatshop actually is. Google and Facebook might actually be the absolute worst example I could think of to describe sweatshop conditions. I agree. Their workplaces are clean, modern and stimulating. This is from the Google Cambridge office:
But whether this style of workspace is conducive depends upon the type of work you do, and even what aspect of your job you're doing at any particular time. Much communication is done through companies' Intranets these days, but this kind of environment is horrible if anyone is on their phone. When you first move into one of these open environments everyone takes care to take their conversations into a private space, but it doesn't take long for everyone to become sloppy, and you can hear everything. It's also not the kind of workspace I want when I'm churning out 10,000 lines of code per month (all coders know I'm lying - 10,000 lines of code a month is extremely difficult unless it's boilerplate). Nor when I'm writing a proposal or a technical paper or a design plan or an implementation plan. When I'm doing that stuff I want a nice private, quiet space away from interruptions. It is very common to hear people at hi-tech companies say that they get their best work done at home. An open collaborative workspace sounds appealing at first, but for many people collaboration is only a small part of what they do. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
My opinion about how the word socialism isn't acceptable to a large segment of the voting public was reinforced on NPR today when someone described the word "socialism" as toxic. That about sums it up for me. It doesn't matter what modifier you put in front of it (democratic socialism, entrepreneurial socialism, utopian socialism), the term is toxic.
In most people's minds socialism leads to totalitarianism. Right or wrong, when most people hear "socialism" they think Marxism, and when they hear Marxism they think communism, and when they hear communism they think of the USSR, the evil empire, the one that Putin is trying to rebuild now. Only a minority of people in the US think positive thoughts when they hear the word socialism. Bernie is being brutally but in my opinion naively honest when he describes himself as a democratic socialist. Anyone who looks up the term will find that the ultimate goal is a socialist economy. But what does democratic socialism mean when Bernie uses the term? Does he really mean he ultimately wants a socialist economy? The most recent reference I could find of Bernie giving his definition of democratic socialism was in a speech he made a year ago at Georgetown University (Here's How Bernie Sanders Explained Democratic Socialism | Time) where he said:
quote:That's the only time I can find Bernie denying that he does not accept the ultimate democratic socialist goal of government ownership (social ownership is the term they use, but it's a smokescreen) of business and industry. But in that case he's not really a democratic socialist, so why does he feel it so important to keep saying that he is, especially because it's killing him among the general electorate. Sure, he does well in primaries, but primaries are dominated by the more passionate (i.e., more left) Democrats. Your average Democrat or potential Bernie voter doesn't want to vote for a self-described socialist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
In their place came stock grants. You're effectively given the shares, they usually vest over 4-5 years, and the purchase price is $0. Because of the low purchase price the number of shares involved in stock grants is typically lower than with stock options, probably around 20% as many shares. Yeah, this is a big incentive with companies like Apple, FB, and Alphabet... its all about employee retention in tech these days because it is so competitive.
It's also not the kind of workspace I want when I'm churning out 10,000 lines of code per month (all coders know I'm lying - 10,000 lines of code a month is extremely difficult unless it's boilerplate). Nor when I'm writing a proposal or a technical paper or a design plan or an implementation plan. When I'm doing that stuff I want a nice private, quiet space away from interruptions. It is very common to hear people at hi-tech companies say that they get their best work done at home. An open collaborative workspace sounds appealing at first, but for many people collaboration is only a small part of what they do. My wife is of the same mindset... She writes code from home. Although she is paid slightly less than the industry standard, she finds a lot of value in working from home. Aside from avoiding a killer commute to the office (which conservatively averages about 45 min each way, and not because its far away), it also removes a lot of wear and tear on a vehicle, cuts down on fuel consumption, she doesn't have to deal with constant noise or constant interruptions (except our dogs who can be bit a needy and time-consuming). We have a nice, quiet work office right at home. One of my criticisms of companies like Google, Oracle, Apple, FB, and other big tech companies is that while they have created these elegant workspaces, its for a specific reason. The food is always top of the line and totally free to the employee. This is all designed around productivity. While these companies pay well and have a lot of perks, they want to squeeze every last drop out of their employees. They want an environment where you don't come in from 9-5, but one where you are okay with coming in from 11am to 9pm. You leave when the job is done.... and when is the job ever really done in that industry? They want to make it comfortable enough to where you're okay with not leaving and continue to work beyond a standard 8-hour workday. Smaller tech companies are able to have most of their employees working from home and have very good ways of monitoring their productivity levels. If you're supposed to be at your computer writing code when you're actually watching Jerry Springer and eating ho-ho's on your couch, it won't be long before they are aware. All of these companies have this ability and should encourage people to work from home, I think. You can even work collaboratively from home just as easily as in a board room. It helps decongest traffic, makes employees happier and more productive. And commutes really take a toll on mental health day after day. People are coming in to work tired and leaving exhausted. Most jobs require people to physically be present... but more and more jobs can, and I think should, be offered remotely. It just makes sense. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
A couple decades ago I wrote an article on the effects of ubiquitous access to the internet on future employment. It included remote workers and remote diagnostics and remote maintenance and lots of stuff we are currently seeing come online. As bandwidth and wireless access continue to expand industry will adapt increasingly towards decentralized production. I see a high probability of factories that have a staff of perhaps a few dozen employees while the actual running of the robots and machines are all done remotely with the actual operators being located all over the world.
The limited onsite staff will be there to perform those maintenance tasks not yet automated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... while the actual running of the robots and machines are all done remotely with the actual operators being located all over the world. The problem is response time. You can see the delay on news from Europe etc to NYNY base. That means there needs to be some relatively local interface.
... As bandwidth and wireless access continue to expand industry will adapt increasingly towards decentralized production. ... And reductions in workforce/jobs. The question becomes who gets to work and what happens to those without work. So that would be part of the
... staff of perhaps a few dozen employees ... Although that number may be high. Who gets to benefit? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In my original estimate only the companies benefit but I also said that I expected increased instability as diverse workforce scenarios displace local labor.
A major issue is in how the workforce dispersion is handled. It could provide benefits if handled correctly; through a gradual transition and training program within a generational matrix but I estimated there was only a slight chance of that happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
My opinion about how the word socialism isn't acceptable to a large segment of the voting public was reinforced on NPR today when someone described the word "socialism" as toxic. That about sums it up for me. It doesn't matter what modifier you put in front of it (democratic socialism, entrepreneurial socialism, utopian socialism), the term is toxic. You really have a bee under your bonnet, imho. You keep going down the road the GOP wants you to take (that's why they always raise Venezuela as if that is the only example).
... But what does democratic socialism mean when Bernie uses the term? Does he really mean he ultimately wants a socialist economy? Nope. He keeps pointing out the Nordic Countries that have a balance of socialism and capitalism in a democratic government system. Also see FDR, specifically his Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia -- which is very similar to Bernie's platforms/issues.
In most people's minds socialism leads to totalitarianism. Right or wrong, when most people hear "socialism" they think Marxism, and when they hear Marxism they think communism, and when they hear communism they think of the USSR, the evil empire, the one that Putin is trying to rebuild now. ... Mostly people raised in the cold war era, where the right wing propaganda painted everything left of center as evil socialism. Congratulations, they convinced you, it seems. Most people I know today don't view Russia as communist, but as an oligarchy of autocrats. The term socialism as an evil epithet has been so overused that labeling town garbage pickup as socialist is seen to be ridiculously not the evil socialism is portrayed to be.
... Only a minority of people in the US think positive thoughts when they hear the word socialism. quote: That's a pretty substantial minority. This poll also does not include democratic socialism, where you have a democratic government, socialist programs and capitalistic economy like we see in the Nordic countries that Bernie points to. The ones with the happiest citizens in the world, according to happiness surveys
quote: Six of the top 7 countries are Nordic countries with strong social programs, democratic government and capitalistic economy, the sixth is Switzerland. Canada is up there in 9th place, the US is n 19th place, below New Zealand, Austria, Australia, UK, Ireland, Belgium. The mix of socialist programs varies from country to country, but they all have democratic government, capitalistic economy and various socialist programs -- most notably universal healthcare. Note that the portion "explained by GDP" is pretty much the same for the top countries and the US, where the difference comes in is explained by other factors. So it's not an either - or issue, it's like mixing a metal Alloy - Wikipedia, the percentages of the ingredients can change and you get different usable results with different percentages.
... But what does democratic socialism mean when Bernie uses the term? Does he really mean he ultimately wants a socialist economy? No, he wants a country with strong unions, strong worker rights, healthcare, good education, living wages for people working 40hr/week, more family time. Worker owned coops are nice, but he's not advocating them, so it's a pretty mild socialism. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There are so many advantages to making it more ubiquitous to count, but some of the big ones are job satisfaction, more alert employees, less traffic for those not fortunate enough to work remotely, less traffic accidents, less CO2 emissions from less cars on the road, etc, etc.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You really have a bee under your bonnet, imho. You keep going down the road the GOP wants you to take (that's why they always raise Venezuela as if that is the only example). Well, and Cuba, and North Korea, and Bolivia, and Ecuador, and Nicaragua, and Peru, etc...
Nope. He keeps pointing out the Nordic Countries that have a balance of socialism and capitalism in a democratic government system. Also see FDR, specifically his Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia -- which is very similar to Bernie's platforms/issues. Its funny, when you ask the Nordic countries why they switched to a Socialist model some said it was because of how they saw the United States using the Veterans Affairs as a template. Now most Americans distance themselves from terms like Socialism. But in any event, people forget that China is still a communist nation, albeit they changed how they do business. They knew they could never compete in a true Marxist/Leninist/Maoist style of communism in terms of production and GDP compared to capitalist societies. So they, quite cleverly actually, said if you can't beat them, join them.... sort of. The architect of the Command Economy, which also is a hybrid of communism and capitalism, allowed for a semi-autonomous free market that is more or less still under the thumb of the PRC. The only problem is that they still hold very draconian views on personal rights and zero tolerance for dissent against the government. It didn't end with Tank Man. China still has a rich and storied tradition of making figures oppositional to the government to magically and mysteriously vanish... even under one of the largest surveillance states ever erected.
Mostly people raised in the cold war era, where the right wing propaganda painted everything left of center as evil socialism. Congratulations, they convinced you, it seems. I think Percy is right to point out that the term might as well be toxic waste in the present era. Timing is everything. In the 90's, there was a gay rights push that was suppressed. People like Hilary Clinton, knowing the pulse on the street, distanced herself from it because she didn't think Americans were ready to accept it. And she was right. The same applies. Maybe socialism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but good luck convincing the bulk of Americans that when they have so many real-world examples of why it should never take root. If you go to the extreme that Bernie is, the chance of beating Trump diminishes. Death by a thousand cuts, while taking much longer, is preferable than a decapitation. People are more comfortable with the devil they already know. Now is not the time to go full bore Socialist. It has too many negative connotations associated with it. Timing is everything. If your goal is to beat Trump in the next election, its gonna be hard to argue against the numbers he's putting up under an extremely capitalist structure. Jobs are up, unemployment is down, fuel prices are the lowest they've been in a long time, the economy is booming, etc. If the goal is beat Trump then you're going to have to find someone that can deliver similar expectations while still able to make improvements. You're going to need someone more moderate than Bernie's views to do it, more than likely. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying there is compelling evidence to assume it true and accurate. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2
|
Share your values
Sanders 39Trump 31 Warren 31 Biden 30 Buttigieg 30 Bloomberg 28 Has good character Sanders 40Biden 31 Warren 30 Butttigieg 30 Bloomberg 29 Trump 26 Check out the polls and tell me what this means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
And I should add that this is a poll of everybody.
Again Sanders is at 39 on the question of whether a candidate Shares my values.39 percent say yes and 36 say no. Trump is at 31 percent yes and 56 no. As for Democrats Sanders has 64 percent saying yes compared to 53 for Biden and 50 for Buttigieg and 55 for Warren and 46 for Bloomberg. Sanders is solid with the voters but where does the red scare fit into all this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
https://www.reddit.com/...sos_poll_for_voters_bernie_sanders
Always include links. Honesty is also one of his strengths. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A major issue is in how the workforce dispersion is handled. It could provide benefits if handled correctly; through a gradual transition and training program within a generational matrix but I estimated there was only a slight chance of that happening. The problem I see is that to absorb the growing workforce in a climate of shrinking jobs due to automation, either the number of companies increases dramatically (and what do they produce when all needs are met with current production), or we have make-work programs run by the government/s similar to what occurred post depression, or there has to be support for non-workers. This could be grants for art projects, grants for pure science or people just being paid to be consumers and thus support the economy. Coops of people supported by government funding could also work on going to space, building the equipment etc. And then there is scoloarhip, learning for the sake of learning, expanding the sphere of knowledge. Could. But in a capitalistic society it likely won't and there will be widespread poverty. That way lies widespread crime and revolution. So something would be needed to keep people satisfied. The problem is that nobody grows up saying they want a dead-end job living in a box, working in a box. What do you want to do? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024