We are all Slave now.

[Icky Thump]

I saw a coworker eat a chocolate chip cookie with a knife and fork today.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Jacob Wohl is having a bad day but there is much fun for the rest of us.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Jacob Wohl is having a bad day but there is much fun for the rest of us.

That might be the most Keystone Kops-esque disinformation campaign I've ever seen.

But it does raise two issues:

1. Is it a crime to pay someone to lie about a political figure? It's conspiring to defame, but that's a civil claim. And it seems a stretch to argue it's attempted obstruction of justice or some interference with an investigation on the theory he and Burkman intended to damage Mueller in some manner that ended his investigation of Trump. I know there's going to be some crime here, but what would it be?

2. Five or six million people who only read the headlines of stories now believe Mueller was engaged in some form of sexual misconduct.

In related news, the 14th Amendment can be overturned by executive order. I daydreamed thru a lot of con law (except regarding the First Amendment, which I find interesting), but isn't this unpossible?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My dad was non union construction. Skilled with a hammer still equals making a living. Of course that has little to do with most infra structure jobs. If you want to stereotype maybe a Hispanic concrete or steel worker. But they also make decent money- enough to buy a car and food and pay rent and raise a family.

On a large infrastructure project, the subs will bring in scrub labor and pay it next to nothing. It's hard to get the extras, change orders, when so many firms are involved. Cost-paring is paramount importance.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In related news, the 14th Amendment can be overturned by executive order. I daydreamed thru a lot of con law (except regarding the First Amendment, which I find interesting), but isn't this unpossible?

No. It's in the constitution so more is needed- as an example- to eliminate the Electoral college we needed a Robert Reich Facebook meme.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Says the man whose city wasn't drowned by Harvey, and the Tax Day Flood, and the Memorial Day Flood. Construction workers are really, really hard to find around here. And they're all driving new trucks.

YMMV. But what we see up here is, even in exburb locales, larger projects are union. The non-union GCs are smaller and work on smaller projects. And they shop subs on fungible work near-exclusively by price.

You want to be union here. Can you make a living doing non-union carpenter work? Yes. But not a great one. (You can make decent money doing it under the table, as a lot of guys do, but that involves risk). And in either case, that's a far different sector of the construction business than large scale infrastructure.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On a large infrastructure project, the subs will bring in scrub labor and pay it next to nothing. It's hard to get the extras, change orders, when so many firms are involved. Cost-paring is paramount importance.

but you are avoiding the point- even Ty agrees union labor is higher paid- our point is those lower paid are plowing their wages back into buying stuff. even your strawman has to eat.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No. It's in the constitution so more is needed- as an example- to eliminate the Electoral college we needed a Robert Reich Facebook meme.

How about we throw 5200 troops at it?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Is it a crime to pay someone to lie about a political figure? It's conspiring to defame, but that's a civil claim. And it seems a stretch to argue it's attempted obstruction of justice or some interference with an investigation on the theory he and Burkman intended to damage Mueller in some manner that ended his investigation of Trump. I know there's going to be some crime here, but what would it be?

Why do you think that's a stretch? Seems like the challenge would be in proving that intent, but if you can, they were attempting to interfere with an investigation. Seem like there might be some other public integrity issues too, but I don't know the details.

Also, as you like to note, prosecutors are good at coming up with theories.

ETA:

In related news, the 14th Amendment can be overturned by executive order. I daydreamed thru a lot of con law (except regarding the First Amendment, which I find interesting), but isn't this unpossible?

I'm assuming they will claim that the executive has broad powers at the border and in foreign policy and can create a class of visa that does not come with birthright citizenship as a condition of entry and that such class includes anyone entering without express approval. And then it would be up to the courts, where they will argue that the 14th Amendment was only for people in the country legally, despite there not really being any legal requirements for entry then.

EATA: Then you just start defining other people you don't like as illegal non-citizens.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

but you are avoiding the point- even Ty agrees union labor is higher paid- our point is those lower paid are plowing their wages back into buying stuff. even your strawman has to eat.

I get that. But consider this point when you argue that non-union low wages are better than no wages at all:

Every lousy wage both depresses the value of the work and fills a slot where a higher wage union laborer could be paid.

I'm going beyond our prior disagreement, but I think I'm getting to a more important issue: The argument that shit wages are better than no wages is a lot of what is holding back the middle class economy. It's got a logic to it, I'll admit... But that's what makes it such a dangerous argument. If we all agree that we want to get all workers paid decent wages, as this will provide the consumption needed to really have true, broad economic growth, we have to demand across the board decent pay for work.

I personally think this can only be effected by a general strike of workers in various industries which grinds the whole country to halt. I don't see that happening any time soon, however. So I'd say in the meantime, rather than enable wage stagnation by accepting, or even embracing, the logic that shit pay beats no pay, the better assertion might be, "Shit pay is a problem we need to fix."

Nick Hanauer has my proxy on this. And as much as I love Uber, the growth of the gig economy should be viewed as a bittersweet development. That people need to resort to these low pay endeavors to survive (no one drives for Uber because it's so damn lucrative) should be viewed as a symptom of systemic disease in the economy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

but you are avoiding the point- even Ty agrees union labor is higher paid- our point is those lower paid are plowing their wages back into buying stuff. even your strawman has to eat.

(1) The multiplier is greater when more money is spent on wages as a proportion of total spend; the higher the wages, the more likely wages are a greater portion
(2) Multipliers aren't the only thing one should care about in looking at stimulus - we wouldn't be happy with an economy that had full employment at starvation wages

I think there is actually an argument that low paid workers often have a higher short-term multiplier effect, because they're going to spend what they get before the next paycheck. But workers making a decent income are going to be a more dependable contributor to the market over a long period of time, so the stimulus will have longer term positive effect.

In the words of the sages: your mileage may vary.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I get that. But consider this point when you argue that non-union low wages are better than no wages at all:

Every lousy wage both depresses the value of the work and fills a slot where a higher wage union laborer could be paid.

I'm going beyond our prior disagreement, but I think I'm getting to a more important issue: The argument that shit wages are better than no wages is a lot of what is holding back the middle class economy. It's got a logic to it, I'll admit... But that's what makes it such a dangerous argument. If we all agree that we want to get all workers paid decent wages, as this will provide the consumption needed to really have true, broad economic growth, we have to demand across the board decent pay for work.

I personally think this can only be effected by a general strike of workers in various industries which grinds the whole country to halt. I don't see that happening any time soon, however. So I'd say in the meantime, rather than enable wage stagnation by accepting, or even embracing, the logic that shit pay beats no pay, the better assertion might be, "Shit pay is a problem we need to fix."

Nick Hanauer has my proxy on this. And as much as I love Uber, the growth of the gig economy should be viewed as a bittersweet development. That people need to resort to these low pay endeavors to survive (no one drives for Uber because it's so damn lucrative) should be viewed as a symptom of systemic disease in the economy.

Someone needs to unionize Uber employees.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why do you think that's a stretch? Seems like the challenge would be in proving that intent, but if you can, they were attempting to interfere with an investigation. Seem like there might be some other public integrity issues too, but I don't know the details.

You provided my answer. There's clearly intent to smear Mueller. But Mueller is a public figure. He's smeared in various outlets all day long. (One defense lawyer even wrote an article calling him unethical. I can't find it, but he claimed Mueller tried to entrap his client using tactics outside the ethics code.)

It's hard to separate Mueller from the investigation, so if I'm prosecuting, I'm thinking, Shit. The defense can argue that there are a million smears against Mueller every week, and all of them could be argued to potentially negatively impact the investigation. The President's own lawyers are calling it a witch hunt on national TV. How is having some woman lie about Mueller worse than those people amassing millions of viewers to believe Mueller has no credibility?

You could lose that case. And the feds never take a case they think they can lose.

Unless there's some crime out there for paying a third party to lie where you yourself would be privileged to lie without criminal consequence. I'm not aware of one, but it'll be fascinating to see if they can come up with one.

I think Mueller played this beautifully, BTW. And that might be the ultimate answer. This might not be a crime, but by inviting the investigation and getting out in front of it, he shows he's nothing to hide while simultaneously scaring other people who might try the same tactic.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think there is actually an argument that low paid workers often have a higher short-term multiplier effect, because they're going to spend what they get before the next paycheck. But workers making a decent income are going to be a more dependable contributor to the market over a long period of time, so the stimulus will have longer term positive effect.

Two other things:

1. Less of a higher paid worker's wages go to payment of debt, which is effectively a rent in regard to middle class workers;
2. Higher paid workers spend in more sectors than lower paid ones (the guy just getting by isn't eating out much, going to a hockey game, renovating the kitchen, etc.; he's mostly just paying for essentials).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That might be the most Keystone Kops-esque disinformation campaign I've ever seen.

But it does raise two issues:

1. Is it a crime to pay someone to lie about a political figure? It's conspiring to defame, but that's a civil claim. And it seems a stretch to argue it's attempted obstruction of justice or some interference with an investigation on the theory he and Burkman intended to damage Mueller in some manner that ended his investigation of Trump. I know there's going to be some crime here, but what would it be?

2. Five or six million people who only read the headlines of stories now believe Mueller was engaged in some form of sexual misconduct.

In related news, the 14th Amendment can be overturned by executive order. I daydreamed thru a lot of con law (except regarding the First Amendment, which I find interesting), but isn't this unpossible?

Mueller ain't just a political official, he's a prosecutor, so I think you're into the basic obstruction of justice set of statutes - for example:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.