Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, I didn't intend to say any of what you wrote. My point was limited and it was this: The concept of a "Corporate Progressive" is an oxymoron.

I was responding to Adder's post, not yours.

The rest of what you've written here is an ornate strawman.

Thank you for the "ornate" part. But why is it a straw man?

But oddly, it proves my point. I think you hold yourself out as a progressive. This would mean you care about people. But actually, you don't really care about people. You're a closeted libertarian. Like me, you don't see any solution for lower skilled workers with which you can live. As you said, "What can you do?" But like me, you don't want to see any policies implemented that possibly harm your revenue stream. So you are vehemently anti-protectionist. Like me. And like me, you don't mind paying a few extra dollars at tax time to protect the status quo that delivers money to you far in excess of what you're worth, at cost to lower level workers who are being paid far less than they should be paid.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas about what I think. I am OK with policies that could possibly harm my revenue stream. For example, I think consumer protection laws in my industry are a great idea. I'm for them. And I don't mind paying in taxes, but I want to pay them to make things better for people who aren't fortunate and to create opportunity. I'm not paying taxes to protect the status quo.

I don't get why you think the status quo delivers money to me far in excess of what I'm worth, or why you think "lower level workers are being paid far less than they should be paid." Are you a Marxist? What magickal device are you using to determine what people are really worth?

We are both enjoying an upward skewing of wages to those in upper middle and top tier management, and the types of professionals that service them.

???

Where we differ, but not much, is I'd also like to avoid taxes. I'm trying to skin it from the revenue angle (keeping more of the revenue for myself) and the tax angle.

You are more selfish and cynical than I am. I am much more willing to vote against my economic self-interest.

I can't be called a "progressive" economically because, well, I'm not. But neither can you. We're a pair of confused sorta-libertarians who differ on amount of taxes they're willing to pay.

I take great offense to being called a sorta-libertarian, sir. In another day, I would challenge you to a duel, or some such thing, but sadly our modern mores and the great distance between us leave me no such option. I must take solace in telling you that you're wrong.

A progressive, OTOH, would demand that we find a way to share the revenue with lower end workers. A progressive would never use the argument that keeping goods cheap for underpaid workers is more important than sharing the revenue with them to allow them to buy goods.

But that's not all that I said. I agree that it's foolish to eschew tariffs to keep things cheap for workers who don't have good jobs. But I also think that tariffs are extraordinarily disruptive because they shelter inefficient industries and harm good jobs. They limit possibilities.

But we don't care. As you said, and I agree, "What are you going to do?"

My plan is to find something better to do that what you've suggested. One obstacle is people like you, who complain about how bad things are but find convenient reasons to shit on any suggestion to do things better. Another obstacle is people like Adder, who are content to point out that you're wrong.