Do you vote for a president with Jewish values or money?

Fox

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 1:00 pm

Miri7 wrote:

I’m not arguing for socialism. We already have a regulated market economy with tax and benefits programs that do redistribute wealth to some extent - Medicaid, food stamps, CHIP.

The discussion is about whom to tax and how much, and how much to give and to whom. This is run of the mill debate in our current democracy. Some people think supply side economics works. Me, not so much. There’s a lot of distance between “equalizing outcomes” and providing some basics for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

While I often disagree with your political views, I do enjoy your posts and I expect more from you then to dismiss my ideas with socialism fear-mongering.

(I’m hoping that this comes across as respectful because that’s how it’s intended Smile

I apologize if I misread your post as an endorsement of Socialism. It appeared to me that way.

The problem with supply side economics is not so much that it doesn't work -- rather, that it takes a long, long time and whatever economic crisis prompted policy changes is long over by the time the effects can be measured or felt. Supply side economics is basically a long-term strategy over decades.

But I disagree with your demonizing of large corporations such as Walmart. SouthernBubby has already cited the problems that have resulted with local increases to the minimum wage. (WaPo

As the article explains, economists differ on the precise effects of hiking the minimum wage to "liveable" wages. However, if you consider that information in connection with other data, it becomes more concerning.

The first problem is that higher minimum wages shut teenagers out of jobs. That's not the end of the world for upper-middle-class kids. For poor kids, it's devastating. Work experience -- even minimum wage in a fast food restaurant -- is a huge factor for poor kids in getting into and staying in the labor force (538).

The second problem is misplaced activism. Chicago, for example, has essentially banned "big box" retailers except in certain areas. The reasoning is that these retailers don't provide adequate wages; enough jobs; drive out small retailers; and are basically an urban blight.

The consequence, however, is that retailers like Walmart set up shop right outside the city limits in adjacent suburbs. Since these locations often require auto access, it's very difficult for lower-income workers to get whatever jobs are available and the taxes go to the suburb. Moreover, their locations prevent lower-income workers and SNAP recipients from easily accessing low-cost food options, including fresh food. Apparently only the wealthy are allowed to save money on paper towels and tomatoes.

This represents the larger problem: I don't believe most people resist the idea of a safety net. What we resist is giving government more and more control over constructing that net. Elected officials and appointed bureaucrats do a worse job than individuals acting in their own self-interest.

"Compassion" is not micromanaging Walmart wages; it's giving micro-loans to small minority-owned businesses and helping them get an appointment in Bentonville to pitch their products to Walmart.

imasoftov

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 1:01 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Some people do get caught that way and others get away with it. Someone who is frum or Muslim can post vacancies in a language other than English and only for their own groups rather than advertising those vacancies for the general public. It may also be that when the property is shown, it is spruced up for the desireables and left dirty for the undesireables. For example, the family that is currently renting may only be told to tidy up when the "right" kind is coming to view the apartment.

Some people get away with rape and murder, too. Others just cheer criminals on or make excuses for them.

Fox

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 1:21 pm

imasoftov wrote:

It's somewhat harder, but doable. Let's say that a landlord is suspected of not renting to people with brown eyes. Send in a number of renters of varying eye color, each with a recording device, all asking for the same size rental. If all the brown-eyed people are told there are no vacancies and all the blue-eyed people are given an application to fill out ...

This is certainly done all the time with regard to anti-discrimination in housing and even in employment. However, it requires either a government agency or a private group to undertake a lengthy, costly investigation. It is usually done only when a pattern of discrimination has emerged over time or a number of complaints have been received.

Even then, there are plenty of exceptions. For example, the federal Fair Housing Act does not apply to landlords who live on the premises. This is far more analogous to a small independent bakery/photographer/dress designer.

southernbubby

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 2:24 pm

imasoftov wrote:

Some people get away with rape and murder, too. Others just cheer criminals on or make excuses for them.

If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound? Basically, the onus does not fall on the landlord who discriminates to fight discrimination. The onus must be borne by those who suffer the discrimination to gather evidence to fight it. Just like the rapist and murderer usually won't rat on themselves and justice depends on the victims calling the police.

Personally I don't know which landlords discriminate and which don't so all I can say is "that's not nice." Usually if confronted, they might cite some bad experiences that they have had so that it doesn't sound like blatant, senseless, discrimination.

I have a friend who is a lawyer for the ACLU and she said that in some little village public schools, the school staff might get away with preaching Xtianity until one person comes along and files a complaint. That one person incurs the ire of the whole little village but unless someone blows the whistle, the school gets away with teaching religion. So basically the whistle blower has a choice, making the whole town hate him, or stand up for the law. So in some cases, the ACLU comes in and shuts down the religious instruction but unless someone steps forward to oppose it, the school staff gets away with it. My point for this rant is that we can scream all we want about meanies who discriminate and get away with it but it is up to the victims to complain.

southernbubby

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 2:28 pm

Fox wrote:

Apparently discrimination laws apply to businesses with business licences and store fronts, not to word of mouth home businesses, so that is one way to avoid a discrimination lawsuit.

marina

Thu, Nov 30 2017, 11:50 pm

Fox wrote:

You're trying to force me to take a position as a free market absolutist, and I'm not going to do that. You're also conflating employment law, non-discrimination in public access, and denial of services. You know you'd never let me get away with that! Smile

I have no problem with employment law, though I'm certainly not knowledgeable about its quirks at the federal, state, or local levels. I'm sure there is room for improvement. AFAIK, it requires "reasonable" accommodations and exempts faith-based organizations.

While you are correct that the free market can indulge bigotry, it can also serve as a powerful force for social change. Examples of this would be the Great Migration and the rise of Jewish M&A lawyers in the 80s. However, there's a reason Adam Smith referred to "the invisible hand of the marketplace." It's both quiet and invisible. We don't notice it until it's already happened; we may think things are stagnating, but they really aren't.

As for denial of artistic/professional services based on religious grounds, it's never a good idea to advocate for laws that could be applied against you in the future. I don't want to force Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes precisely because I don't want to force frum photographers to be forced to take pictures in churches.

Is it possible that people might misuse religious freedom to discriminate on spurious grounds. Absolutely! As I said in my initial post on the topic, it's entirely possible that cases would arise that would make me re-think this position. However, it doesn't seem to be a problem, and I'm against regulation when none is legitimately needed. Legislating rules to prevent theoretical bad behavior just in case anyone ever tries it does not generally make for good law.

1. It looks like this case is really being tried on freedom of speech and not free exercise grounds. In other words, most of the legal analysis here concludes that the cake baker's free-speech position is much much stronger than his free exercise of religion position. That's because you need to follow the law if it is a general statute of neutral applicability, regardless of whether it offends your religion or not. See Employment Division v Smith for more info.

2. The common factor in this discussion of various civil rights laws (employment, public access) is whether the government should have enacted them in the first place or let the market take care of it.

3.

Quote:

Legislating rules to prevent theoretical bad behavior just in case anyone ever tries it does not generally make for good law

We are talking about a law that barred people from discriminating against gay people. Not sure how that is theoretical. People do discriminate against gay people. Hence this case.

The main question appears to be whether the First Amendment free speech clause protects this particular form of discrimination.

southernbubby

Fri, Dec 01 2017, 8:35 am

marina wrote:

I just read the ACLU's stand on the case. Everyone agrees that those wedding vendors that do not rely on artistic expression should have to accommodate the public equally. These vendors include hotels, caterers, limousine services, tuxedo rental, and others where the person seeking services does not want anything other than what if provided for everyone else.

The ACLU's position, however, is that there are many wedding vendors that do rely on artistic expression such as make-up artists, hair stylists, florists, photographers, musicians, jewelers, and dress makers. They feel that this freedom of expression in the business world would unfairly restrict these services to the gay community.

The real life facts are that someone who really hates gays or who has strong religious objections are unlikely to be the best professionals for the job but the gay community apparently would like to believe that everyone views them favorably and therefore they don't have to shop around for services.