Not going to pass, but solid effort to get the idea out there to give it time to simmer as the electorate and representatives churn over time. Expect progressives to add this as a talking point during future election cycles.
and virtually NONE of the congress want it to pass, Dem or GOP...but the Dem congress know that joe manchin will not vote for it, and so it will not pass...so they figure now is the perfect time to create bills like this...the Democratic congress campaigned on this sort of legislation, even though they don't want them to pass...they promised their voters they were genuine progressives/leftist...so they need to prove it...but their corporate lobby paymasters would be displeased were this sort of legislation to be passed...but joe manchin has given the signal that he will be the convenient "villain" that will stop any populist leftwing bills...it's a kabuki dance...
It’s quite funny you are getting downvoted. I worked in DC lobbying for years and this is precisely, 100% how things work in DC. There’s even a name for it, “messaging bills”, bills voted on just to let your supporters know you’re giving it the ole college try. The tactic is very effective too, look at all this press and cred is being gained all over a complete fantasy of a bill. The press has also been courted and managed by the confessional media relations staff and K Street lobbying firms. The “corporate paymasters” also represent a valid stakeholder in the process as they represent their employees, customers and shareholders. Much of politics is theatre.
I’m not advancing some jaded, cynical conspiracy theory. This is simply a mechanic of modern American politics, same as how a phone app operates on a structure that most users are unaware of. I say this not to sway you to one side or another, just be aware that like you have your professional hidden world, politics has its as well.
It had a natural constituency, one with money, who fought for decades to make it a reality. Thats how you effect change, you fight like mad for 40 years to make changes, the less money you have, the longer it takes.
also, those sort of divisive culture war issues are much beloved by the media and their corporate advertisers because it distracts voters from the real hardcore economic issues that have the potential to hurt fat wallets
I'm not sure gay marriage was one of those issues, Abortion is, there are others that are, where there is alot of smoke, but no fire. As in, lots of noise, but no constituency.
Same sex and abortion legalization have happened through Supreme Court directives and not through the legislature.
It’s a reflection of the dysfunction that is currently playing out. Democrats hold a trifecta in the Federal Government and can’t even pass a law to make abortion legal throughout the country. They absolutely have the power to do so. They could have threatened SCOTUS with passing this law if SCOTUS decided to let the State Abortion bans stand. But they didn’t.
They can absolutely abolish the filibuster or make exceptions for it. Stop parroting the party line excuses and learned helplessness. The fillibuster is a Senate rule not a constitutional one.
The party could end Manchin’s ability to get re-elected if it was all that important to them. He is useful where he is and if he wasn’t there would be someone else who was useful. He has some influence, but he’s not the only centrist in the party. More theater.
Yeah piss off Joe Manchin so he goes independent and caucuses with the Republicans. That will definitely allow the Democrats to pass a pro abortion bill.
With a 50/50 Senate, Democrats need Manchin more than he needs them.
He’s also the only Democrat who can possibly win in WV where trump won by 40 points.
> but he’s not the only centrist in the party
Legalized abortion isn’t an issue that centrists oppose.
But that was a Supreme Court decision, not a bill in congress. Congress could have passed it at any time, they just preferred for the court to take the heat. And clearly bills get passed now and then, everyone in the industry knows there’s a difference between a real bill with a chance of passing and a messaging bill that’s just there to keep the base engaged. The theater continues, keep enjoying the show.
Too bad I don't enjoy bullshit, its one of the reasons I want to leave this country. The politicians don't actually seem to give a shit about their constituents, but they're happy to pretend they do.
Unfortunately, leaving this country means going to another one, and that other country will also have politicians. And I suspect that their politicians will be not significantly better than US ones. (If you've got a country that has good politicians, I'd like to hear of it!)
"Oh no, if it weren't for the dastardly other party we would've delivered what we promised during the campaign! Unfortunately only the political donors get what they asked for this time around, vote harder next time kid." - Every American politician until the heat death of the universe
This is a writing style I see every so often and I don't quite understand it. Using so many sets of ellipses within paragraphs and sentences makes for a very bizarre and difficult to understand cadence.
It's very difficult to read and honestly comes off as immature, as if the writer has an incredibly limited grasp of English sentence and paragraph structure.
I don't think it's hard to read at all. Probably the person who wrote it is uncomfortable with punctuation, especially when they want to connect related thoughts that they're not certain form complete sentences on their own. If you look at the top-level commenter's history, they seem to use it to separate elements in what they see as a chain of reasoning.
Many of the fragments could be combined to form coherent sentences with minimal or no modification. At the moment it's one long run on sentence with a bunch of ellipses spread throughout.
i actually have a degree in english and a former english teacher...I use ellipses because they save time and separate sentences well, making them easier to read
On the other hand, the old adage 'read for content, not for grammar' is always applicable. Especially online, where people from all kinds of different cultures interact, and not all of them are native English speakers.
That is absolutely the truth: see also the continued legality of abortion despite decades of Republicans winning elections based on their "opposition" to it. Why eliminate something that consistently wins you elections?
In the 50 years since Roe, Republicans have won a lot of elections. Democrats have won somewhat more elections. So, first, it's hard to criticize them for not doing what they've never had the power to do, and second, if it's their strategy for winning elections, it's not quite a winning strategy.
It seems to me that Republicans have opposed abortion more consistently than either party has acted on any other policy position. (Not totally consistently, but more consistently than on anything else.) It's hard to view that as hypocrisy. You can oppose it, hate it, whatever, but they do seem to be following through on their position.
And, what progress have they made? They went from a 7-2 liberal Supreme Court majority in 1972 to a 6-3 conservative majority today. That's where they made progress on defeating abortion.
Eh. This is a true picture for the Democratic Party as a whole: they don't want this to pass any more than they want Medicare For All to pass. The Progressive Caucus members are probably sincere about pushing it, though.
As far as the left is concerned, the GOP has a 52-48 advantage in the senate. They’re pushing bills like this to say “vote the DINOs out of the party.”
Pushing bills like this may lead to much of the country saying "vote anyone on the same side as these nutcases out of Washington". The Democrats may wind up with a purer party. They also may wind up with fewer seats. In other words, you may be right about their strategy, but it may not be a smart one...
Many on the left are done compromising with the center because they don’t have to worry about the right doing so either. Personally I’m fine if the democrats get trashed in the midterms; maybe it’ll break the gerontocracy and give the left a fighting chance in 2024. Because with the current center-right bend of the DNC, I don’t have a dog in this fight.
Your choice. Realize, though, that the number of people "on the left" (defined as significantly left of the DNC) are not enough to win enough elections to be able to have any say in things. Trying to pull the DNC marginally your way is the only lever you've got.
Right now the DNC panders to us during elections then forgets we exist after they win. So let them lose a few; maybe then party leadership will be open to some new ideas. The last two elections have proven the dems can’t win without the left.
> It's a hedge against automation; it should push up the price of labor by reducing supply; and it just makes life significantly better for everyone.
This wouldn't be a "hedge against automation", it would be a catalyst for further automation. You'll reach the point where the only sensible thing for a company to do is to automate.
It may make life better for those who are still employable in a market where it's cheaper to pay a few engineers to design automation than to pay all the overtime you'd otherwise need to be shelling out. And in the long run (100 years out) we'll probably be better off for the automation. But in the short run intentionally making people harder to employ doesn't make any sense to me.
> This wouldn't be a "hedge against automation", it would be a catalyst for further automation. You'll reach the point where the only sensible thing for a company to do is to automate.
If it's inevitable that x% of jobs are going to be automated in the next decade, reducing the supply of labor by x% is a reasonable hedge. Yes, it may mean that x+y% (where y is something significantly less than x) are actually automated, but IMO we are still better off.
The thing is, there's some jobs that are very resistant to automation, and this will tend to spread them over more people and push their wages up by reducing supply.
> But in the short run intentionally making people harder to employ doesn't make any sense to me.
Right now there's a lot of talk about increasing minimum wage. I think shortening the work week is better, because it spreads the higher skilled jobs around more people and doesn't exclude people whose current labor value is less than a higher minimum wage from the work force.
The 40 hour work week has been good for everyone. Do you believe 40 is the ideal number, and can't be improved upon by moving it in either way? I think that:
- looming issues that may reduce demand for labor
- increased productivity that the benefits of have almost all accrued to capital instead of to labor
- other developed countries doing OK at 36
all argue that 40 hours may have been ideal for 1940 and something more like 36 hours is ideal for now.
