Author Topic: If President Warren & Democratic Congress passed this bill, would U B concerned?  (Read 21033 times)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Not to pile on, but regarding being fine, jailed for using the wrong pronoun. I see this fallacy a lot, where people read something, somewhere, and then believe something. I work in research. All information is not equal. When you are writing a paper, you are to quote original sources (say, the government website) rather than a blog that might have a political agenda. A lot of trouble can be avoided, if people just read the original sources rather than what are really opinion pieces. Not that opinion pieces don't have their place and value. but if you are trying to determine a fact (will I get fined if I accidently call someone the wrong pronoun) it is best to look at the original source, such as the law. And as far as well, someone can misinterprete the law, isn't that theoretically true for all laws? Why make something into something it isn't?

It's difficult to overcome because there is a lot of money being made, actually in this specific lie. Jordan Peterson makes well over $1,000,000 per year from his Patreon account. He became famous by twisting that bill into some "social marxist" conspiracy, became internet famous, and now does international tours, books, and is adored by many thousands of right-wing extremists.

He's never going to admit that he was wrong about the Canadian bill. So the lectures, Quora posts, etc. that made him famous will now always be more readily findable than what the bill actually was or intended. And once there are people who are gaining money, power, or influence from a lie, you'll never get them to say anything different.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Not to pile on, but regarding being fine, jailed for using the wrong pronoun. I see this fallacy a lot, where people read something, somewhere, and then believe something. I work in research. All information is not equal. When you are writing a paper, you are to quote original sources (say, the government website) rather than a blog that might have a political agenda. A lot of trouble can be avoided, if people just read the original sources rather than what are really opinion pieces. Not that opinion pieces don't have their place and value. but if you are trying to determine a fact (will I get fined if I accidently call someone the wrong pronoun) it is best to look at the original source, such as the law. And as far as well, someone can misinterprete the law, isn't that theoretically true for all laws? Why make something into something it isn't?

It's difficult to overcome because there is a lot of money being made, actually in this specific lie. Jordan Peterson makes well over $1,000,000 per year from his Patreon account. He became famous by twisting that bill into some "social marxist" conspiracy, became internet famous, and now does international tours, books, and is adored by many thousands of right-wing extremists.

He's never going to admit that he was wrong about the Canadian bill. So the lectures, Quora posts, etc. that made him famous will now always be more readily findable than what the bill actually was or intended. And once there are people who are gaining money, power, or influence from a lie, you'll never get them to say anything different.

More reason to squash the lie every time it rears it's head.  It's not always possible to prevent the torrent of lies presented as truth, but every finger in the dike helps.

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
@onlykelsey - re board seats and worker recusal, does the act have a safe harbor exception?  Does it need one?

Former auditor here. I think that to some degree, boards have power to the extent that they assert it. They have responsibility to ensure that the appropriate stakeholders (currently stockholders) have their interests served by management. To enforce that, they have the power to hire/fire the chief executive. Normally they are to set policy, and the CEO is supposed to follow it. Also the chief audit executive usually reports to them. How much authority they assert by using their power depends on the board. I do suspect that the balance of power is more CEO-centric than it should be, but that varies.


I think this is true in theory but not so much in practice.  Think about it...the board members are either retired people or people who have "day jobs".  They don't want to/can't focus 100% of their time and energy on the company they serve.  Many of them serve on multiple boards.  Contrast this with CEOs and management teams whose only responsibility is serving the company.  It makes perfect sense that management would drive the ship and the board would only be there for supervisory purposes.  Obviously if management is doing a lousy job, it's the board's responsibility to make changes, but you can't expect the board to truly run the company.  At least, as a shareholder, I don't want them to.

I don't expect the board to "truly run" the company in the sense of being executives, and making daily decisions. I do expect them to "truly run" the company in the sense of making sure that that stakeholders (currently shareholders) are properly served by the company, meaning that they require and verify that the CEO is doing it. That's their job as board members. They are the ultimate authority short of the shareholders themselves.

To use the ship metaphor, obviously the CEO has her hand on the tiller (the steering wheel), driving the ship, with the crew reporting to her. But the board is supposed to set the course, and if the CEO doesn't follow it, they fire her.

I admit that too many boards are probably too much of a rubber stamp. Inevitably, they will be making decisions largely based on what management tells them. But whether they are rubber stamp, or appropriate, or too activist/attempting to micromanage, varies board to board.

The bill in question would widen the scope of what board members might examine, and might require of the CEO. My guess is that it would make being a board member a more difficult task, but might make society better.

Threshkin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Location: Colorado
    • My Journal
My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?
Why is this a burning and important question to you?
Clearly, racist troll is trolling while racist. I'm infuriated to see this kind of crap in this forum.
Oh, get bent. She's as blond-haired, blue-eyed, 0% Native American as I am. Primary difference is I don't claim otherwise.

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

My understanding is that the Cherokee tribes say that isn’t Cherokee.

Again, I have to ask . . . how does claiming to be 1/32 of a particular race matter in any way?

I think it has more to do about cultural appropriation and a longstanding grievance by Amer-Indian tribes that people of European descent can’t stop taking every last thing from them.  That said, I don’t particularly have feelings on this matter and don’t claim to be an expert. 

In my book she’s a crackpot extreme socialist whose public statements are not consistent with the principles this country was founded upon.

Politics aside, it matters because she supposedly used that Native American claim to receive preferential treatment from Harvard University her employer.  There are conflicting arguments regarding both her ethnicity and if she got special treatment.  Since there is little or no proof regarding her claim, other than family lore it would likely become a major issue if she ran for president.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
3. Everyone wants healthcare to be more affordable and available to everyone. The disagreement is how to make that happen. My mom needs cataract surgery, she's in canada, she was told the wait time is... wait for it... 18 months. Now that's great healthcare!

Sorry, I was riding socialized public transit when it occurred to me that I should comment on this. Is Canada a prison state now? Can't she travel to the economically free US for her surgery? I am more familiar with UK healthcare where every citizen gets a decent standard of care that is paid for by their tax dollars and if you want more health care/insurance you are free to pay for it. Lo and behold they still pay less than the US for the public part (that is, less than we pay today for the ACA+Medicare+Medicaid).

So tax everyone for socialized healthcare but you end up needing to pay for private healthcare anyway? hmmm.

So FYI, per-capita medical spending per year:
UK: government $2,974, private $782
US: government $4,860, private $5,032

They pay less in taxes for their medical expenses than we already do, and then they pay a lot less privately.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
...it would likely become a major issue if she ran for president.

That might be true, even though when I walk around telling people that I'm Scottish/English/German/Russian no one bats an eye. But sure, in the days of Birtherism it would surely matter at least to Fox News.

So FYI, per-capita medical spending per year:
UK: government $2,974, private $782
US: government $4,860, private $5,032

They pay less in taxes for their medical expenses than we already do, and then they pay a lot less privately.

Yea, but doneby35 wants that to be $0 in the US, so that people are "free."
« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 06:05:28 PM by PDXTabs »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?
Why is this a burning and important question to you?
Clearly, racist troll is trolling while racist. I'm infuriated to see this kind of crap in this forum.
Oh, get bent. She's as blond-haired, blue-eyed, 0% Native American as I am. Primary difference is I don't claim otherwise.

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

My understanding is that the Cherokee tribes say that isn’t Cherokee.

Again, I have to ask . . . how does claiming to be 1/32 of a particular race matter in any way?

I think it has more to do about cultural appropriation and a longstanding grievance by Amer-Indian tribes that people of European descent can’t stop taking every last thing from them.  That said, I don’t particularly have feelings on this matter and don’t claim to be an expert. 

In my book she’s a crackpot extreme socialist whose public statements are not consistent with the principles this country was founded upon.

Politics aside, it matters because she supposedly used that Native American claim to receive preferential treatment from Harvard University her employer.  There are conflicting arguments regarding both her ethnicity and if she got special treatment.  Since there is little or no proof regarding her claim, other than family lore it would likely become a major issue if she ran for president.

I would agree with you if that was the case.

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread though, there's no evidence at all that Warren's claim of being 1/32 native helped her career, or was used as a consideration for hiring her.  There's no record of Warren receiving any kind of preferential treatment from Harvard University for her ancestry.

Honestly, I don't view it as significantly different that Donald Trump's family changing their surname from Drumph to Trump to appear more English.  Yes, it did happen.  Yes, it could appear to be misleading in the right light.  Yes, it potentially could have helped his family (especially as the name change was done around the first World War when people weren't too happy with the Germans).  No, unless some new evidence is brought forward to change our understanding of things it really isn't too noteworthy.

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
@GuitarStv, just noticed the tag line that your spirit animal is a tardigrade. That is hilarious.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the bill author instead of the bill, and other tangential matters: The comparison of health care costs is a little indirect regarding a bill focused on corporate governance. But I have read that the British system of law and business uses less "bright line" law and more judgement than the American one. Perhaps said judgement leads the UK to a more practical cost structure in medicine, both public and private, while America's untempered pursuit of specific principles allows cost to run amok.

The bill in question provides a mechanism for more judgment, more balancing of varied concerns, more tempering. Perhaps it would benefit shareholders in the long run, just as the UK's cost structure ended up lower even though its government-focused healthcare system might theoretically have been more expensive. In other words, maybe President Warren's bill will be profitable for shareholders.

El_Viajero

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations

I just have to think that this would mean a stock market crash as the profitability of American corporations would take a huge hit.

Nah. Markets performed well during an era before "shareholder value is our only concern" was the dominant paradigm. They also perform well in places where the sort of system Warren is proposing is already in effect... whether by culture or by policy. Were it to pass (it won't), there might be a short-term scare and then everything will go back to normal (i.e. market continuing to go up).

Worst case scenario: this sort of proposal puts a damper on investments abroad and slows down progress in human development; it wouldn't slow it down by a lot, maybe just a bit.

Best case scenario: it reduces inequality in the U.S., leading to less political tumult and disempowering the populists

Likely scenario: Things get better for some sectors of the population, CEOs grumble about it a bit, and the market keeps going up and we keep enjoying our fantastic prosperity that's unprecedented throughout all of human history. Fundamentally, the Warren plan changes little.

I'm not saying I support the legislation. I just think the reaction, "I can't help but think this would crash the stock market" is alarmist and possibly rooted in ideology.

Ideology, of course, is the enemy of reason, critical thinking, and effective analysis.

asauer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Location: North Carolina
I worked for a Dutch organization when their law changed.  It was well received and generally created some positive economic change.  However, the US is different and has a different cultures so we really don't know.  Additionally, I would add that I'm concerned ANYTIME congress passes ANYTHING these days.

anonymouscow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 155
Give me lower growth if all people willing to work in this country get to be middle class. Wanting stock market returns at all cost means complicity in a system that causes working poverty.

How about those “able” to work? I have more of an issue with those “able” but not “willing” than those “willing” not being paid enough.

It reveals a lot that you consider other people getting too much a bigger problem than other people not getting enough.

Yes - heaven forbid I feel slightly jaded when I work 700+ hrs of overtime in a 6 month period while people working 40 hrs a week are complaining that they can’t get by.

I am just not wired that way. To complain about my situation instead of working to improve it.

Someone making $15/hr working 50 hr weeks makes more than MMM and many people here spend in a given year.. let alone a couple with two working people..

I thought MMM was making way more than 15/hr, unless you mean spending... if you don't count the Nissian Leaf, Studio, Organic food, travel, tuition, or donations.

One downside to working more is there are less opportunities to save on money. Can't spend the time do do your own car repairs when you need the car the next day to go to work. Miss out on grocery sales because you only have time to stop at one store. Not enough time to garden, do home repairs, cook food, shop around, etc.

This year I have spent over 3k in car repairs, 4.5k for a used vehicle, 2.5k in medical bills, those are big chunks for someone not making 15/hr, that's about half my take home pay for the entire year not counting housing, utilities, food, gas, home repairs, etc.

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
I think he's using the $30,193 figure for MMM's spending from the 2016 MMM family spending report. That figure included tuition, donations, travel, and insurance for the Leaf. Obviously it's less than $15/hr x 50 hours/week x 50 weeks = $37,500. I assume that after tax, the $15/hour for 50 hours/week would exceed MMM's stated spending.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/19/2016-spending/

To be fair, MMM also mentions 4 expenses that are not included: Leaf purchase, building his backyard shed (studio), and the cost of capital from not having a mortgage, and the cost of home insurance. He self insures; most of us would find that to be too much risk. The mortgage interest alone is $16k, so yes his lifestyle cost is more than $15 would pay for.  But to be fair, MMM is also correct that he doesn't have to build the studio, or buy organic food, or pay tuition for fun; these are discretionary expenses, his family of 3 could indeed spend $22k plus the mortgage cost and home insurance...roughly 39k for 3 people, or 13k/person.

As to whether the fact people can live on amounts in the neighborhood of $30k means that we should support or ignore Warren's bill, I think we should pass it. Better job quality will help millions of people at no cost to the government and little or no cost to shareholders; a good overall bargain.  By probably raising wages and improving work conditions for someone like @anonymouscow, this bill would help more people achieve FI faster, including Anonymouscow.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 01:07:59 PM by BicycleB »

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5206
I like her. The financial books she wrote I read of hers were some of the more common sense ones I've read. How bad personal debt was for example. She teaches personal responsibility and self education. I'm glad she is an advocate of regular people not to be taken advantage, and make it more likely people will make financially better decisions. If that makes her a "crackpot extreme socialist in yr book", so be it.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Tennessee
I concur with partgypsy, supra.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
This thread got me interested in reading one of her books. It looks like she has a bunch of books:
  • This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America's Middle Class
  • All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan
  • A Fighting Chance
  • The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are (Still) Going Broke
and some others, including a law textbook?

If I wanted to read one, which should I pick?

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5206
The one I read was all your worth. I suspect it may be rather elementary for mmm's. It might be more interesting reading "this fight is our fight" or "a fighting chance", which gives more back story and her motivation to save the middle class in the US. 

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!