General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIntroducing the Libertarian Democrat. Are You One?
Remember when liberals cared about wages, Social Security, Medicare, and fair competition? We'll, they don't anymore. Check your cell phone. If you have the Uber app or Airbnb app, you're part of the problem. It started with the internet behemoth Amazon. Amazon benefited from tax laws their lobbyists wrote precluding internet sales from sales taxes. That's fair competition, right? Remember book stores? Ask displaced owners of the now extinct brick and mortar bookstore if it’s fair. They may not have been as convenient, but they had employees. But Democrats don’t care about jobs anymore. Venture capitalist and early Amazon investor, Nick Hanauer, explains that "Amazon didn't create jobs, it probably destroyed 1 million jobs." While some industries have reached the point of no return, we need to fight fight to save existing jobs before they become extinct.
Wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. In lieu of raises, corporations have opted for ways to lower prices thus creating “proxy raises.” It works like this: seek lower wages and benefit expenses by exporting US jobs overseas, and introduce technology that allows companies to replace full-time employees with part-timers and contractors. This is today’s business model of multi-national corporations and upstart tech companies like Uber and Airbnb. By replacing full-time employees with part-timers and contractors, companies avoid employer expenses like paid vacation, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment tax payments.
Since the Reagan administration, business, and its subsidiary, the main stream media, have been winning the war on organized labor. And they continue to win because Democrats take weekends, the 40 hour work week, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment for granted. Democrats seem oblivious to the fact that, left to their own devices, corporations disregard human dignity.
Think about that next time you click on these apps.
Nick Hanauer on Income Inequality
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
daleanime
(17,796 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Change happens.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Who else wants to step up?
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)There have been a lot of great changes over the years, and the internet is a great example of one.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Dismissed
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)But I'll still leave you to your rant about technological progress. Adios
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)It's not social progress as the electric light bulb was progress.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)I have never used AirBnB, so lets keep the topic on uber.
They are competition to traditional taxi drivers. I have used traditional taxi drivers for a long, long time.
Taxi drivers have told me they don't have change for my $20 bill on a $9 fare (in Vegas and in Newport Beach where I used to live).
They have told me their credit card scanner is broken, even though they have the sticker clearly displayed in their window that they accept cards, which is breaking the law in california (i ended up being held hostage for 20 minutes while he drove me to an ATM, was forced to withdraw cash, then I got taken me back home). The second time such an incident happened was on my way back from my honeymoon. We flew into LAX, got a cab that said cards accepted, then he started bitching when he found out we didn't have cash. He drove us to a sketchy area in LA at 1am that had an ATM and told us to get cash. Luckily from my previous experience I knew what to do... dial the number of his company and tell them what was going down. The guy folded, dropped us off, accepted our money via credit card. And I never took a taxi after that.
Uber is a response to the SHIT taxi drivers that deserve to get fired, and I don't feel a single bit guilty for using them. Their drivers know the terms of the deal and they choose to do it. So far I have not had one bad experience with uber drivers. So in the end, fuck taxi drivers.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)not doing a libertarian end-run which is what Uber is.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
malaise
(268,674 posts)and personal experience is never described as empirical evidence.
Response to GummyBearz (Reply #2)
olddots This message was self-deleted by its author.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I see them at the gas station on my way to work.
If I need a cab, I contact them directly. No money for travel, so no need for Airbnb or any hotel/motel services at this time in my life.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]There's a taxi co-op here and while I started out collecting business cards, calling direct didn't always mean the driver I called was available. They all belong to the same co-op, though, so now I just call the main number and almost always get someone I already know.
I only need a cab a couple of times a month, but it sure beats the expense of owning a car (and I walk more!), and the co-op service has never failed me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And sadly, there are way too many of them about.
Rand Paul does NOT have a point, neither does his asshole racist daddy.
That whole meme is being sold to the Millennial bunch, and they, sadly, are buying it.
They will learn one day that selfishness has a price.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Really though, even though these two memes seem oversimplified, they sure do seem to hold up to the test in my experience.
There does seem to be two major subgroups though. The first being "socially liberal-ish but fiscally conservative" types that can afford to be so. The second subgroup I'll delineate below.
Back when I was a "millenial" it had some appeal to me but that was only because I was too young and inexperienced to test it against real "life in the big city", as they say. I don't see a whole lot of my peers now going for it other than some ultra-partisan true-believers...and even they try to use the term as a way of selling themselves as some sort of thinking man's conservative. They're not socially liberal at all but more along the lines of "I got mine, and I did it on my own" types that think the "invisible hand" of "the free market" is lord and master.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The attitude goes along with the "I had it rough and it made me a BETTER person (yeah, right)" vibe. It pairs nicely with "Well, then YOU have to suffer, TOO!!!!!"
You see this a lot in the military, as well, amongst the old salts, who back in the day, were 'young salts,' hearing the same bullshit from the ancient mariners who were the old salts way back when!
"Oh, these young kids have it SO EASY!!!!" I don't know if they have it "easy," it's more like they have it "different." Their paths are smoothed, physically, but their world is more complex in other ways.
Hell, I think if I'd had to deal with the "helicopter parents" of today when I was a kid, I would have gone nuts. I was raised in the free range style, and not in America for much of my life either. I couldn't imagine being caged like the children of today--no wonder they grow up to be selfish and self-absorbed...their parents, with their excessive over-protectiveness, rather imbue that in them, poor things.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)but I agree, and it's sad the millenials buy into it, young people always have. It was popular when I was young too, and when my older brothers were that age. It seems to cycle through every generation. In high school and college, this ideology was everywhere but people eventually realized how bad it is for the long term. The same will happen here.
In a perfect world where everyone is kind, generous and fair, it might work, hypothetically, but even then I question it. We are stronger as a collective anyway. Hyper focus on the Individual is just a recipe for eventual disaster due to competing interests - and that's if the world was a nice place. There's nothing progressive, and I use the term literally, about libertarianism. It's quite the opposite, it's regressive.
...selfishness has a price.
Indeed.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I realize Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Chris Christie think so.
emulatorloo
(44,057 posts)You can have them all.
403Forbidden
(166 posts)...that's what technology does.
403Forbidden
(166 posts)...problem is, the newly created jobs aren't in America.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)As sales of mp3s sinks. Nothing stays the same.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Even on this site, right here.
Maybe folks who didn't live before Reagan had his way with the electorate find it hard to understand, but things didn't always work this way.
It is clear to so many people that even a "Progressive" like President Obama is probably generally to the right in politics and policy to a Republican President like Eisenhower.
If it can go one way, it can go the other, particularly when there is such a hunger for real change that affects the lives of all working people.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)That force is well funded - organized - relentless - evil...
The force required to push back and hold the gains when they are made must be as ever-present.
They will never be as well funded.
It seems like the force needed to hold back the relentless evil can not be maintained unbroken.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Jumping to conclusions, especially depressing, demotivating ones is dangerous!
The power of positive thinking, yes, those kind of guys had it right in some ways all along!
Bernie says himself, when we stand together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish. This has been proven true before, as in mobilizing for World War II, as in other powerful movements. When we stand together. That's what we've got to do. Because if and when we do, there are more than enough of us to make sure this becomes a more positive world in an actual sense, not in a bizarro world Raygun sense.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)but we must stay on our feet a never stop marching
treestar
(82,383 posts)A lot of white right wingers are not really against social programs. They are against them for nonwhite people. Thus Eisenhower could be in favor of higher taxes for the rich, etc. But by now it includes everyone, and the white right wingers are imploding because of it. Obama is to the right of Eisenhower. Obama is dealing with a hugely diverse country which no longer accepts only white people as members of the middle class. And Obama deals with rabid opposition Eisenhower never had to, not to much because he himself is black, but because he includes black, brown and any nonwhite people in his definition of "Americans."
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)that government exists only to secure and protect private property, punish crime, and secure borders.
I might agree (and agree very strongly) with some libertarians that the government has no business in dictating morality but I disagree just as strongly with their conception of private property, the primacy of private property, and their proposed vision of the ideal political structure, which exists primarily to protect private property.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)...swears an oath to some purity test. In real life, the ones who call themselves one are de-facto conservatives who use "libertarian" as a sort of boutique label.
I'd say a blowhard like Neil Boortz is the consummate libertarian though, as you lay out in your first paragraph. "Slave owners that want the police to protect them from their own slaves" I've heard it put.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Some kind of muddled, confused, pseudo-libertarianism is what most of these conservatives actually profess. Which to me, is probably even more objectionable.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)I don't think you have to be a libertarian to believe in the concept of private property.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)But the libertarian has a radical perspective on private property that ignores certain facts. I'm talking about the land itself and not anything that someone created through his efforts. The libertarian ignores the fact that there are 2 parties involved in his claim of ownership. Himself and the rest of us. We grant his claim to have exclusive control over a piece of land, to allow or deny access to it forevermore as he sees fit. In exchange for that privilege we -- the rest of us -- might require him to pay some ongoing compensation in the form of property tax.
The libertarian ignores or rejects the two-way nature of the deal.
Furthermore, he rejects the idea that the rest of us have any right to impose any restrictions whatsoever on what he does on the land.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)people, actual human beings, that were considered private property, this sounds horrible. Especially when you have people, a party even, trying to roll us back to those "good 'ol days." Secure and protect who, exactly? And punish crime? Wait, crime according to whom? That's a fluid word and has a long history of manipulation. And borders?? Borders set by colonial force...
No. Just no.
TheBlackAdder
(28,163 posts)
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Since the beginning of time, change has occurred. It's kinda like death and taxes, it's going to happen.
The problem we're facing today isn't just that these Internet companies are "killing" jobs, it's that your some of your standard brick & mortar stores aren't changing with the times. I've watched this since the Internet started developing beyond the AOL chat model. I'm a web developer and have been for some time--people do not think they need to invest money on their Internet presence and if they do, they often do it cheaply and without much afterthought. Or they'll build a website and then shirk online advertising because, hey, they never had to advertise before. Then there are successful folks who still have B&M stores but also have successful websites, they've embraced the change and made it part of their business model. I sometimes wonder if there are people who think the Internet is still a fad and will slowly fade into obscurity.
Also, as a web developer, I've been a contractor many times--hell, most of my career. And just because you're a contractor doesn't mean you don't receive benefits or you're constantly getting screwed. It depends upon whom you're contracting through. I contracted at PBS for 5 years. I had health insurance, I could have participated in a 401k if so inclined and I also had paid vacation but that was because of who I contracted through. I know of at least one other company in my neck of the woods that deals with its contractors the same way--so contracting isn't always a horrible proposition.
I've used Uber on a few occasions and I had a much better experience with my Uber drivers than I've ever had with regular taxi drivers (many of whom are also Uber drivers, BTW). I've never met a taxi driver who likes accepting credit cards and I've been denied rides because that's what I want to use. With Uber, no such problem. So really, the taxi companies need to talk with their drivers about actually accepting payment they say they accept.
I've never AirBnB'd because that just seems weird. However, I will say that services like AirBnB allow some people to travel who otherwise couldn't because of funds. Are they doing so at the expense of the local government they're visiting? Yep, they are but then they have more money to spend locally at restaurants, bars, shops, etc. so the local economy isn't being completely ripped off by tourists.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)a minimum livable salary and cheap/"free" education for retraining if needed. Then people aren't fucked over completely due to superior technological business models.
hunter
(38,301 posts)As in the opposite of "Progressive."
Another similar brand is atheists who have abandoned a fundamentalist religion or culture but still carry all the other fundamentalist baggage of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc..
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Love it for the selection and the reviews, which are very useful for comparison shopping. Hate that they use temporary staffing companies for their warehouses and shipping centers, and that the working conditions are so harsh.
Love that small businesses can get greater exposure by selling through Amazon. I ordered an out-of-print book through Amazon last year that I couldn't find anywhere else. When it never arrived, I contacted the seller, a small bookstore somewhere out in no-man's land.
They bent over backwards to replace the lost book and the person with whom I was corresponding said that she was grateful for the exposure Amazon gives the shop. I now have a favorite go-to book store that I can patronize on line directly or through Amazon.
The same is true of Ebay, of course, and I use both, depending on the item.
Since I choose not to own a car, running from store to store trying to find what I need (wasting time and gas) isn't an option, so I do a great deal of my shopping on line.
The internet has changed how we do everything. Small businesses can survive and flourish by embracing it and using outlets like Amazon and Ebay.
Now if only Amazon would update and improve its labor practices ....
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Amazon could unilaterally adopt a Costco HR model, but they don't have to. And why should they? And what if they did, and it hurt their bottom line? They probably wouldn't keep the system for long.
We need government precisely because you want business as a whole to operate in a civilized manner, rather than the lunatics running cartels that they really are in a "free" market. Lord of the Flies.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If you think about it, warehousing large numbers of books at thousands of locations makes no economic sense. It's much more efficient to warehouse them at megacenters where they can be shipped individually. More efficient than that is Kindle, no paper or shipping or anything.
The demise of book stores, cabs, etc. is sad, there just isn't any stopping it. Those old systems were too inefficient to survive in the Information Age. No sense being Luddites about it.
To fix this, we shouldn't be looking at corporations. We should be looking to the federal government to provide universal healthcare and robust Social Security.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]"To fix this, we shouldn't be looking at corporations. We should be looking to the federal government to provide universal healthcare and robust Social Security."
I'd add that labor practices need to be updated by legislation, as well, guaranteeing safe and humane working conditions.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Begging corporations to give up profit is a waste of time. Only the government can ensure we're treated fairly.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]We've ceded our power to the monied elites and corporations, but we have one more chance this year to reassert ourselves and take back our power.
Good legislation is no accident, but is accomplished when "The Government" is one of The People, by The People, and for The People.
Only one presidential candidate promises to make that his priority, and we need his leadership and inspiration to effect any real change.
[font color="purple"]Go, Bernie!
Feelin' The Bern!
madville
(7,404 posts)Even more facets of human labor will be deemed inefficient and cost-prohibitive. Uber won't matter when they and others have a fleet of self-driving cars. Commercial truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, forklift drivers, pilots, train conductors, bus drivers, etc, gone as well.
Once humanoid robotics become mainstream you will see entire hotels and restaurants with almost no human staff.
AI will replace more professional careers like engineers when it can develop ideas on it's own.
The medical field will be decimated as well. Why train a nurse or doctor for years when a robot can do it?
We are at least a couple of decades away from such realities but it's coming.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... in the traditional sense, since that is a left-wing ideology that grew out of those who were opposed to capitalism.
Some Americans call themselves "Libertarians", little "l", or are part of the "L" party, but they haven't a clue what they are all about since they supposedly believe in unfettered capitalism. American libertarians are anarchists that took a horrible turn somewhere way back down the road - and have been lost and clueless ever sense.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)I will not use Uber and have no use for Airbnb which I wouldn't use anyway if I did.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]The local cab co-op I use just made an app available, too, and it's great.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)does do away somewhat with the human contact with a dispatcher - but instead of being told "7 minutes" (that seemed like the default)
earlier this week it told me "Grey Toyota in 1 min." Whoa!
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Here, once the request goes in, the driver calls and gives me his ETA personally - much more reliable than a dispatcher's guesstimate. They'll probably have the app upgraded to do what yours does soon enough. 
The transit company already has a "real time" app for bus and light rail arrivals and it's awesome.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In many cities it's a mess of cronyism and shitty, almost impossible-to-get service.
Like it or not, Uber fills a need. And the fact that technology is changing the landscape of our day to day life isn't due to "libertarianism", it's due to reality.
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)From my experience UBER has made the crappy cab companies clean up their act. In my eyes, this is a good thing after the filthy smelly cabs I have been in.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)but trade unions and bricks and mortars didn't see the big picture either. They never fought for the working class as a whole to earn enough to pay for legit cabs and hotel services. The poor earn such little money that they can't function without uber, lyft and airbnb, and they can't be blamed for paying what they can afford.
