Who will take on Obama in 2012?

Given that you admit the employment helps these people, isn't the assumption behind your question that the employer has some special obligation to them? That would seem to be the case, because you're being more critical of them--who are actually doing something that helps--than people who have no involvement in the situation at all. They're doing more than you or I, yes? Yet you seem to regard them as worse.

I would specifically note the word "special" here. You can make a good case that none of us--you, me, and this hypothetical employer--do as much for others as we ought to. That's certainly true. But that's a condemnation of pretty much all of humanity which, generous as it is, never gives as much as it can. It's the singling out of the employer that my question is about.

There's a lot more here, including the simple question of pragmatism, and what's going to lift these people out of poverty (spoiler alert: it's not fewer employment opportunities), but I think examining these base assumptions first would probably be most helpful.

With Obama drawing even in averaging the national polls, maintaining small leads in the important swing states, Romney missteps this week,and Obama getting good notices for the handling of the storm, I find it hard to believe Romney will pull an upset. He is too flawed a candidate to win a nail biter.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Sorry, I have to vent about this.
You know what? I know people who collect medicare and social security benefits, for being "irresponsible," they sure had to pay into those services. Mitt Romney can kiss my ass. The sad thing is, a decent number of SS and Medicare recipients will vote for him, even after characterizing them as bums. Goes to show the intelligence of the average voter.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

Why do you keep ignoring the key motivating factor for taking labor to these countries, that the people are willing to accept less pay? The small amount of work they have is wholly contingent on their desperation. Maybe theoretically, they could form some kind of union and demand more wages, but if that were to happen (most likely resulting in violence), then these companies would simply search elsewhere for cheap labor. Remember how America once had a booming manufacturing industry, then as a result of labor movements and demand for higher wages, these companies sent work to underdeveloped nations with enough desperate people to manufacture their products. The irony being they can't ask for more, because what few employers they have are essentially holding all the cards. It's like revolting against the only supplier of food in your country. As you conservatives even say, labor unions and their demands drive "job creators" to foreign labor, thus proving how utterly paradoxical your argument is. Laborers have the ability to demand more, but this results in the businesses just relocating and hiring people with much lower standards of living. So, it's the laborer's fault for accepting lower wages and it's their fault for fighting for higher wages and their always being far more desperate people to utilize for labor? Do businesses have any responsibility in this at all? You know what else creates jobs for the impoverished, prostitution, but I doubt you would suggest handing out nobel prizes to pimps. Oh I forgot, wealth itself is a noble virtue in America.

Here we go again. This is another iteration in the cycle: you complain about entitlement cuts, I point out they're unsustainable, you offer no serious alternative, rinse and repeat. We've gone through this what, three times? And every time by the end you've lost your cool and insulted people who disagree with you and later apologized (to your credit)?

And I've been listening pretty closely, and I don't recall Mitt Romney calling me a bum for being part of Social Security. If this is a reference to the 47% stuff, it doesn't really work, because way more people than that pay into SS. But you've always been quite happy arguing with viewpoints you think Republicans secretly hold, so perhaps it doesn't really matter what was or wasn't said. Either way, you're going to pretend they're all heartless Randian androids, because that makes arguing with them so much easier.

I don't; to the contrary, their desperation is precisely why it's so important. This doesn't pose any problem for the arguments I'm making.

I didn't say it was the laborer's fault for accepting lower wages. Usually their position is the result of a corrupt government.

I find it interesting that you've thought about this issue just enough to make this point, but not enough to rebut it, as you inevitably would if you kept going. If the above keeps happening...then what? We run out of places to find cheaper labor, don't we? The only reason they exist at all is because competition doesn't exist in this places already. The problem is not too much capitalism, but too little. That's the real paradox: you're mad that they can't demand better wages, but you hate the competition that will actually begin that process and allow them to.

That's my question to you: are you saying businesses have a responsibility to pay more than is profitable? To lose money, even? To essentially be charitable? If so, why don't you or I or anyone else have the same obligation to be charitable? And, in purely pragmatic terms, what of the fact that hiring people for more enables them to hire fewer people overall? What about those desperate workers who won't get a job because the other desperate workers are now making more?

This is essentially the same argument as the arguments about the minimum wage, by the way. I have a post on this from awhile back I can link you to. It deals in the same concepts and suffers from the same fallacies.

No, it isn't; it depends on how you obtain it. And complaining about one of the few entities actually making a positive difference in these people's lives isn't a noble virtue, either.

That's exactly my point, business only does what is profitable, so we have a clash of two parties with two different interests. Also, do you really think US companies are incapable of paying a wage that people can live because it is too expensive to their interest, because if that's so, then you validated my point about the laborers in these situation not being able to ask for more. So, it's building them up to potentially ask for more money, even though the entire situation, as you pointed out yourself is contingent on lower cost of labor. Two completely conflicting interests, and in the Capitalist system the one who owns the means of production is who sets the terms, so your upward mobility argument is null and void. I'm saying that Capitalism, a system based on maximizing profits for the owners of property and providers of labor, requires that laborers conform to the agreement of lower wages and fewer benefits to even have any employment, or be met with outright poverty, it's nothing more than blackmail. Those with wealth, are the ones who set the terms. The only reason working conditions improved in the 20th Century was due to the various labor movements which ultimately led to the lords on high, to simply look elsewhere. This alone should prove that yes, technically workers can ask for more, but because of a system that is predicated on placating to owners of wealth, it is a moot victory.

Every sale that has ever taken place is a "clash of two parties with two different interests," yet the overwhelming majority of them are mutually beneficial. The fact that they each push for their own interest is precisely why the system works.

Indeed, in many cases these businesses can almost certainly afford higher wages for their foreign workers. They'll just have to hire fewer of them as a result. Hence my questions to you: what do you say to the workers who don't make the cut, and don't get a job at all because wagers are higher for those that have them? They can't hire everyone. Whatever the wages are or should be, according to you, lower wages generally mean you can hire more, and higher wages mean you can hire fewer.

The only situations where this is literally happening--where people literally have to accept the low wages to achieve even basic sustenance--are places where this is almost no trade and very little competition. In other words, they're not very capitalistic. The places where it happens least are generally among the richest nations in the world. So, as I keep saying, the things you're upset about are the result of too little capitalism.

Look around. Workers in capitalist nations have far more options and leverage than those in poorer nations that don't have as much business activity and engage in very little trade.

Blackmail operates by creating a threat and then holding it over someone. The businesses in question aren't creating the poverty that these people live in; it's preexisting, before their employment.

Except for the part where you have to find mutually beneficial terms to acquire or increase wealth.

More than what? More than they have, sure. That can (and does) happen. More than they would otherwise have? No. Whatever money is spent on improving things like working conditions either comes out of wages, or out of reduced employment. Working conditions are essentially a benefit, just like health care or dental; you can have it included, but you're only shifting your compensation from one form to another. When people are desperate, they accept poorer working conditions because it makes higher wages possible.

So let's try a broad question: do you think it's ever reasonable for someone to decide that they'd rather have higher wages than poorer working conditions?

And a new contender enters the arena.

Unconfirmed reports suggest Seds might be his campaign advisor.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Why do people still like The Simpsons? Can we kill the sacred "The Simpsons are so REAL and wholesome and well put together and warm..." BULL. Because I've been onto this show for years thinking it didn't deserve its goody two shoes status over other programs like Family Guy.

This is a funny, well put together clip, sure, but this is just... unfair. And including a Barack character with his wife's broccoli isn't equalizing the fact that the whole segment is about how Mr. Burns, the most wicked man in Springfield, is a big Mitt Romney supporter. It's unfair because The Simpsons is a huge cultural entity that can make deep impact.

If it's not unfair, then it is at least low.

Democrats are acting like there might as well not even be any elections anymore and that it should be totally their way or the highway.

The clip is funny because, well, Mitt Romney doesn't have the best public image. The Simpsons didn't even NEED to bring all this up because it's common knowledge. What's low is...I dunno, Ann Coulter calling the president a "retard" on twitter, Donald Trump's constant "birther" nonsense, the tea party spread rumor that the president is a Muslim, or any such conservative cheap shots. Mitt Romney is the choice of morally ambiguous billionaires, so as a satirical program, the Simpsons would have been amiss if they didn't make this joke that was staring them right in the face.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Well, I just don't think you can compare The Simpsons with Ann Coulter or even Donald Trump. The show is far more persuasive and larger in cultural scope. They certainly are free to do it, but I think it's kind of despicable.

Forget Big Bird -- it's Bart Simpson who needs to go.

You still have South Park. Those guys are Republicans.

Well with the Republicans being the way they are I can see why they would adopt that viewpoint but you are right that they have that affinity, which is enough to be stupid, not to mention their ideas are barely different than their counterparts.

It's in his autobiography dude

At one point in that clip Smithers just lists a bunch of negative things about Romney. That's not "satire." That isn't witty. It's not even a joke. And while I expect Presidential candidates to get made fun of, I expect Presidents to, too. I loved the 2000 SNL debates, because they were funny and even-handed. This is neither.

I think people on the left fail to understand what it's like to have almost all your sources of entertainment take shots at what you believe in. Sometimes in shockingly snide ways. I guarantee you that if the positions were reversed, and the overwhelming majority of media were poking fun at liberalism all the time, it'd bug the crap out of you.

Conservatives have tried to put on shows that make fun of liberals, but they are not very good at it.

There was that Fox News comedy show that was on for about two minutes.

There is, of course, a lot more to it than that. There's a lot of creative inertia there as well. But the reason is irrelevant to the point being made, which is about the result.

I'm glad you mentioned this because I was thinking of stating that what I said earlier -- "This is a funny, well put together clip" -- actually isn't true. I watched the clip again and the only thing I really laughed at was Michelle Obama's broccoli snack. Everything else is just making cold statements out of these characters' mouths. It is shockingly snide. And of course they had to throw in the binders full of women thing, too, 'cause, yeah, that's so hysterical....

I bet I could have put together a funnier MoFo Beach related clip.

Apparently, last night's new episode of The Simpsons wasn't any better:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...s-election-day

I thought they cancelled The Simpsons a few years back...