Election 2020

Mayor Pete Wants To Destroy the Gig Economy in Order To Save It

Buttigieg says the best way to move into 21st century is to revive 20th-century unions.

|

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, wants to destroy the gig economy in order to save it. That's the takeaway from the Indiana mayor's new proposal, "A New Rising Tide: Empowering Workers in a Changing Economy."

"It's time to help our nation's workforce become more resilient, inclusive, and flexible, and more easily adapt to our dynamic, ever-changing economy," reads the plan, but its focus is to force more regulations on employers and increase unionization among workers, neither of which is likely to make it easier for the economy to grow or the workplace to "more easily adapt" to the needs of suppliers, workers, or consumers.

As CNBC summarizes things:

The plan aims squarely at major tech platforms like Alphabet's Google and the ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft.

Buttigieg also called out fast-food giant McDonald's, which he holds up as an example of a company that keeps "wages low by refusing to bargain with workers who technically work for small local McDonald's franchises."

The plan is "aimed at doubling unionization, restoring workers' rights that have been eroded by decades of anti-worker policies by government and corporations alike15, and expanding labor rights to workers who have been left out." Part of this analysis is based on the idea that drivers for ride-sharing services such as Lyft and Uber have been "misclassified as independent contractors." The most-recent determinations by the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board and rulings by federal courts have consistently found the opposite. Earlier this year, Uber settled a lawsuit launched by drivers that would have changed their status from contractors to employees without altering their status. Legislation that would do exactly that is working its way through the California legislature too, despite two 2018 federal court decisions that said drivers for Uber and Grub Hub, a delivery service, were contractors and not employees.

The thinking behind Buttigieg's new plan is based on two notions, each of which is mistaken. First, that the average American has been left out of the income gains made over the past several decades. "We got the rising tide–GDP went up, productivity went up–but our paychecks didn't show it," the plan states. "Working class wages have stagnated since 1980." The second fundamental notion is that unionization is essential for widespread prosperity in the future. Neither of these is accurate and each leads to policies that are likely to make the economy less dynamic.

Begin with the notion that middle-class and working-class workers haven't seen an increase in compensation. A big part of that narrative is flatly untrue. "Average inflation-adjusted household incomes for the middle fifth of Americans (by income) rose from $56,400 in 2000 to $64,700 in 2015. That's a 15 percent gain," writes The Washington Post's Robert J. Samuelson, who further notes that when "the effect of taxes and many transfers were included [in a study last year by Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty, and Gabriel Zucman]…the median income jumped 33 percent from 1979 to 2014." Other work by economists such as Russ Roberts shows that income growth and mobility are alive and well. When you study actual individuals, rather than group averages, an encouraging picture begins to emerge. Roberts cites a study that

looks at people who were 35–40 in 1987 and then looks at how they were doing 20 years later, when they are 55–60. The median income of the people in the top 20% in 1987 ended up 5% lower twenty years later. The people in the middle 20% ended up with median income that was 27% higher. And if you started in the bottom 20%, your income doubled. If you were in the top 1% in 1987, 20 years later, median income was 29% lower.

This comports with other analyses that find shrinkage in the middle class is more than offest by greater reductions in the number of lower-income households and increases in upper-income ones. None of this is to say the economy is fine and dandy and that workers should just shut up. Far from it—workers should always be pushing for higher wages and compensation. But the broad narrative that wages, compensation, and living standards have somehow stagnated is simply false.

Without wading into a long discussion of the effects of unions on general wages in the past, this much seems to be true: Outside of the public sector, unions are unlikely to be resuscitated anytime soon. About 6 percent of private-sector workers are in unions, down from 17 percent in 1983 and a peak of 37 percent in 1960. Contra Mayor Pete, the main reason for that decline isn't an increase in Pinkertons threatening union organizers or even the proliferation of right-to-work laws at the state level, but the changing nature of work. The further jobs get away from assembly lines, in which employees function as interchangeable laborers, the harder it is to standardize pay and wages. The growth and decline of private-sector unionization follows the growth and decline of the industrial sector in the United States. As important, the same pattern is seen in other advanced economies, as work becomes standardized and inflexible.

This is especially true of gig-economy jobs such as driving for Uber, where the whole appeal is the flexibility of a decent-paying side-hustle (and where one 2017 study found the median hourly pay of Uber drivers to be $38). As retired newspaperman Bill Steigerwald wrote in 2016:

This is the best part-time job I've had in a career of them. I have no bosses, I have no schedule, and I work when, where, and how long I choose. It's the perfect gig for an ex-newspaperman who's writing a book and whose income streams also include Social Security, a pension, and freelance writing. Every time I go to work, I know I'll pick up about 25 random, mostly under-30 people from Pittsburgh and around the globe who, sober or drunk, are happy to see me and, when asked, invariably express unconditional love for Uber.

Uber, like a lot of part-time or low-skilled jobs, isn't something people can or should expect to pay all their bills or become their only source of income. Trying to transform these sorts of new-model jobs into old-model ones will accomplish nothing but the slow (or fast) bleeding of a new industry and, not insignificantly, the end of a service that really helps a lot of lower-income consumers.

If past is prologue, union representation won't actually help drivers as much as it will help the central offices of unions. In a 2000 story about the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Reason Contributing Editor Michael McMenamin wrote:

Unionization doesn't stop turnover in low-wage, low-prestige jobs. But the new employees who take those jobs after their predecessors move on to better things find themselves saddled with a union they didn't choose because the labor laws presume that the new employees support the union in the same proportion as the old employees did.

I like a lot about Pete Buttigieg, who at his best represents a new generation in American politics and a principled unwillingness to go along with the most free-spending plans of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination (he's against "free college for all," for example). But as he starts to unveil more and more plans—to pack the Supreme Court, say, and to call for national service—he becomes less appealing from a libertarian perspective. That's also true for the central propositions of his latest policy prospectus, which seeks to regiment 21st-century workers under backward-looking regulations.

Advertisement

NEXT: Tulsi Gabbard's $50 Million Lawsuit Against Google Is Another Attack on Online Free Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I got some bad news for you, Nick.
    Pete is a socialist too. Just like all the democrats.
    (economically, he is a fascist, but that is a trigger word, so – – – – – – -)

  2. […] Their reasons for being down on the economy to try and bash Trump and destroy companies like Uber and Lyft that interfere with their cartels simply aren’t true. […]

  3. All these idiots claiming life was so much better and rewarding 20, 30, 50, 100 years ago are hiding behind the lack of time travel. I doubt even 1 of 100 people would elect to stay in their favorite golden era if time travel were available. A week or two would drive them loco. No internet, crappy TVs, crappy movies, crappy cars, crappy homes, crappy appliances, crappy jobs.

    I love seeing old cars. There’s a lot of work keeping them running and looking so good. But they are terrible cars. Crap engines, crap brakes, crap tires, crap radios, crap air conditioning, crap safety, crap everything. Fun for a while, nothing you’d want to live with day in and day out.

    1. No way I’d give up internet porn.

    2. “Air conditioning”? Those aren’t old cars.

      1. I remember a desert bag of water hanging out the window.

      2. If you want Sevo to admit a car is old, it better have a starter crank.

        1. Maybe that ‘38 Rolls Royce Wraith on ‘NOS482’.

      3. I think s/he means the cowl windows.

        1. Or a crank-open windshield.

    3. The cars we had in the 50’s and 60’s had “4 window A/C ” and hand crank windows and manual locks that let you lock your keys in the car and Carburetor that flooded or had to be adjusted, etc

    4. ButtiGigli will bring Studebaker back to South Bend. Bottoms Up!

    5. I doubt even 1 of 100 people would elect to stay in their favorite golden era if time travel were available. A week or two would drive them loco. No internet, crappy TVs, crappy movies, crappy cars, crappy homes, crappy appliances, crappy jobs.

      I disagree slightly. The real problem is the more extended logistics. I’d bet more than 1 in 100 would go for a couple weeks or even up to a few months but, eventually, 99.9+% of them would at least want to have a return visit to (e.g.) have a modern hospital to treat their bronchitis or deliver their children.

  4. Buttigieg sure appears to be the least bad choice we could have, other than Biden.

    And let’s be honest, trump needs to go.

    1. Trump needs to go? Sure he’s bad. I haven’t seen a socialist yet who’d be any better, and all I’ve seen would be worse. Better constipated than diarrhea.

      1. Democratic socialists are automatically better than alt-right “capitalists” purely because of immigration.

        #ImmigrationAboveAll
        #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
        #AbolishConcentrationCamps

    2. I agree that Drumpf must not be reelected. It’s totally unacceptable that a Russian intelligence asset has already served this long as US President. The possibility of 8 years of a Russian puppet government is simply unthinkable.

      But have you considered supporting Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren? They’ve been my top 2 choices for months. Both have so much to offer us Koch / Reason libertarians, such as the return of forced busing for racial integration.

      1. Forget the “/s”

    3. No, Trump needs t stay. He’s actually doing ok. No democrat will be close to tolerable. Every one outhouse cocksucking douchebags is committed to giving free healthcare to illegals. Every one of them will crush business with tax hikes and regulations. And ever one of them will trample on our freedoms.

      No, not a one of them should be elected. in fact, all of them belong in prison, or at the end of a rope.

      1. Every one outhouse cocksucking douchebags is committed to giving free healthcare to illegals.

        Yeah. Looking past any given candidate to the wider policy implications such that you consider a vote for Trump to be a vote for deficit spending, immigration crackdowns, and tariffs; that still puts him reasonably above $15+ federal minimum wages, free healthcare, and free education for everyone, including immigrants.

    4. Trump is like a long cold — it will go away and not long after you’re over it, it’s forgotten and rarely does it have lasting side effects. You eventually learn to reduce the number of colds you get by being careful.

      A Democratic President with a Socialistic bent and a compliant Congress is like Alzheimer’s – it sneaks up on you, you ignore the early warning signs by rationalizing, eventually it renders you completely disabled, and eventually it kills you, and there’s no effective treatment.

      When you start giving stuff away, it’s very hard to wean people from that — esp. when a majority of the people have become dependent on the (compelled) “largess” of the minority.

  5. These guys sure do like pricing Americans out of the labor market.

    1. Democrats have never seen a private sector job they didn’t want to destroy.

  6. Breaking News:

    Guatemala just announced that it was caving to pressure and will enter into a Safe Third Country agreement with the United States.

    “The agreement would require that migrants traveling through Guatemala on the way to the U.S. seek asylum in Guatemala instead of at the U.S.-Mexico border. President Trump joined Guatemala’s interior minister, Enrique Degenhart, and acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan in the Oval Office to sign what White House officials said was a safe third-country agreement.”

    —-WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-guatemala-have-signed-agreement-on-asylum-white-house-says-11564172071?

    The timing is especially important, here, because on Monday, Trump is due to make his determination as to whether Mexico’s efforts have been sufficient to stem the flow of asylum seekers through their country to the U.S. border. As some of you may have heard, Trump agreed not to impose sanctions against Mexico if they 1) did their best to stem the flow of asylum seekers through their country and 2) if he judged that their efforts were insufficient after 45 days from June 7, Mexico promised to put a Safe Third Country agreement up for a vote in the Mexican Senate.

    The issue was that Mexico has its own problems with poverty already, and they don’t want to be the final destination for 100,000 new destitute Central Americans every month either. So, the Mexican government has repeatedly warned that unless Guatemala entered into a Safe Third Country agreement, as well, the Mexican Senate was unlikely to ratify the agreement as is required by the Mexican constitution.

    So, this agreement with Guatemala means that Hondurans and Salvadorans will, generally, no longer be eligible for asylum in the United States if they come to the U.S. by way of Guatemala. Meanwhile, if and when Mexico enters into the agreement, it will mean that people from those two countries won’t be eligible for asylum in Mexico either–clearing the way for Mexico to join in the agreement. At that point, no one would be eligible for asylum in the U.S. if they set foot in Mexico first.

    This could translate into a huge policy win for Donald Trump. It should be noted that regardless of how we feel about Trump’s tactics, the results are thoroughly constitutional, entirely legal in terms of both our ratified treaties and U.S. law, it didn’t involve an executive order, and it didn’t involve building a wall. Sometimes, the president going through the motions of following the Constitution, our ratified treaties, and the law is the best we can hope for, and–from that libertarian perspective–everything’s coming up roses.

    P.S. Roses.

    1. Winning.

    2. Um…

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/07/15/a-safe-third-country-agreement-with-guatemala-could-be-dangerous/#1bf2736415a5

      “Anderson: Would the U.S. signing such an agreement with Guatemala mean people from Central America would stop coming to the United States?

      Fratzke: Most likely not. First, nearly half of the Central American migrants and refugees at the U.S. southern border today are coming from Guatemala itself. But a safe third-country agreement with Guatemala would not apply to Guatemalan nationals.

      Second, experience elsewhere in the world suggests that safe third-country agreements are usually not an effective means to deter new asylum seekers, in part because they can be difficult to enforce. Under other safe third-country agreements, relatively few people are actually transferred back to the first safe country they crossed.

      More than 145,500 asylum seekers have arrived in Greece from Turkey since the EU-Turkey agreement was signed in 2016. But so far just 2,441 people have been returned to Turkey from Greece under the agreement. “

      1. It’d be understandable if you weren’t knowledgeable about this–it hasn’t been reported widely at all. There’s not much excuse for it when you’re just ignoring what I wrote–and that’s what you appear to be doing:

        “The Mexican government has repeatedly warned that unless Guatemala entered into a Safe Third Country agreement, as well, the Mexican Senate was unlikely to ratify the agreement as is required by the Mexican constitution . . . . If and when Mexico enters into the agreement, it will mean that people from those two countries won’t be eligible for asylum in Mexico either–clearing the way for Mexico to join in the agreement.”

        —-Ken Shultz

        Is that really confusing to you?

        1) The Mexican Senate was unlikely to enter into a Safe Third Country agreement with the United States unless Guatemala entered into a Safe Third Country agreement, too.

        2) Now that Guatemala is on board, the Safe Third Country agreement with Mexico is much more likely to pass in the Mexican Senate.

        3) If and when Mexico enters into a Safe Third Country agreement with the United States, then not only will Hondurans and Salvadorans be ineligible for asylum in the U.S. if they stepped foot in Guatemala first, Guatemalans will also be ineligible for asylum in the U.S. if they entered Mexico.

        4) For some reason you need this all spelled out for you twice? Did you really not realize that a Safe Third Country agreement with Mexico would apply to Guatemalans entering Mexico?

        1. If.

          1. If you don’t do laconic, I’ll elucidate.

            If the Mexican government signs it. If the Mexican government has the means to enforce it. If the Mexican government has the will to enforce it. If the Mexican government has the intent to enforce it, then you’re right.

            1. So treaties only matter if those signing them are really part of the government of that country? Is that what you’re proposing?

              1. No, treaties only matter if the parties involved both give a shit. Do you really think the Mexican government has the resources to deal with this? Do you think they want to even if they did? Hell, given their track record with the cartels, do you think that they could, even if they wanted to?

                Odds are that anything they agree to will be so full of loopholes and exceptions that it would be worthless. But it’s a symbolic victory that will be hearty feeding to Trumpkins everywhere, pwn the libs once again and it’s failure will be apparent only when everyone’s forgotten about it.

                1. Esmeralda Overdrive
                  July.26.2019 at 11:38 pm
                  “No, treaties only matter if the parties involved both give a shit. Do you really think the Mexican government has the resources to deal with this? Do you think they want to even if they did? Hell, given their track record with the cartels, do you think that they could, even if they wanted to?”
                  Do I give a shit? It is their country to run or not. They agree? It is not the duty of the US to make it work.

                  “Odds are that anything they agree to will be so full of loopholes and exceptions that it would be worthless. But it’s a symbolic victory that will be hearty feeding to Trumpkins everywhere, pwn the libs once again and it’s failure will be apparent only when everyone’s forgotten about it.”
                  Thank you for positing a lot of hypotheticals proving once again you post here to prove how stupid someone can be.
                  Gold medal!
                  Fuck off and die, you sorry excuse for humanity.

                  1. U mad, bro?

                    1. No, just tired of lefty fucking ignoramuses.
                      Did you have any point to make other than a cliche’? Didn’t think so.
                      Fuck off and die, someplace where we can’t smell your remains.

                    2. Oh, and BTW, I am in no way a “bro” to fucking lefty ignoramuses such as the newly self-proclaimed Esmeralda Overdrive.
                      Fuck off and die.

                    3. We’re not mad. It’s just that you are a progtard. And progtards must be slapped down. Hard.

                      Learn your place progtard.

                    4. Seems like all you guys did was ignore his arguments while hurling insults. Pathetic.

            2. “If the Mexican government signs it. If the Mexican government has the means to enforce it.”

              If the Mexican government has the means to enforce it?!

              This Esmerelda Overdrive guy is a stupid buffoon! He still doesn’t know what we’re talking about? LOL

              If Mexico enters into a Safe Third Country agreement with the U.S., then asylum seekers who set foot in Mexico first won’t have the right to an asylum hearing IN THE UNITED STATES. He’s a moron!

              When they ask for asylum in the U.S., they will be denied a hearing in the U.S. by the U.S. government because, per the agreement, they won’t be eligible for asylum in the U.S. if they first set foot in Mexico. That has been explained to Esmerelda Overdrive three times now. Not only is he an ignoramus, he’s also so stupid that he can’t comprehend what he’s already read twice!

              Is the third time a charm?

              I doubt it.

              1. So when we find out about it, these people will be rounded up in the same manor that they are now, correct? Then we have to determine where they’ve been and then process them through a deportation process? I get that this is a policy win, but I doubt it’ll be much of a political one, at least domestically.

                From a practical standpoint, we’ll probably be doing similar thing with these illegal immigrants as we did before, just with no asylum hearing (or if they get one, it’ll be shorter). It seems like a step in the right direction, but I don’t think it’ll change as much as you think it will.

                So from ou

                1. Well, if we don’t have to hold them for an asylum hearing, that will make processing much faster. Which will mean we don’t have to hold them for as long, which will kill the “concentration” camps.

                  Plus, word spreads based upon what people say. Unaccompanied minors because big after people were saying that Obama allowed them to illegally immigrate. If people start talking about how you can no longer stay if you step foot in Mexico or Guatemala first, that will discourage many.

                  1. Yeah, even as it is right now, a fat chunk of the people who ask for asylum aren’t granted a hearing because the reason they give isn’t a legal basis for asylum. Because you can’t find a job isn’t a good reason. It needs to have something to do with being persecuted for exercising your human rights, being a minority, etc.

                    In a thread last week, I broke down the numbers showing the difference between the number of asylum claims in 2011 from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras vs. the number of asylum claims from the same countries in May of 2019. In all of calendar year 2011, there were less than 1,500 asylum claims from those three countries. In May of 2019 alone, there were over 110,000. More than 70% of those people were either families traveling with children or were children traveling alone. I believe that’s indicative of DACA being implemented by Obama in 2012. Once word spread that if your children came to the U.S. before they were 18, the U.S. government wouldn’t deport them, it created a huge incentive to bring their children to the United States.

                    Correlation may not equal causation, but it doesn’t rule causation out either.

                    If and when the Mexican Senate joins in a Safe Third Country agreement, I’d expect that incentive to disappear when those people realize that they are no longer eligible for an asylum hearing. The final nail in that coffin will be when the Supreme Court hears the challenge to Trump overturning Obama’s executive order that instituted DACA in October. Shika Dalmia doesn’t even expect the Supreme Court to uphold DACA. Even if we like DACA, it was clearly unconstitutional.

                    P.S. I broke down the numbers a couple of weeks ago about the success rate of asylum claims from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as well. Less than 10% of the people who ask for asylum from those three countries are granted asylum. I feel sorry for the 10% who are legitimately fleeing persecution, who have to contend with all these opportunists. They shouldn’t have to sit in holding for so long.

                2. “So when we find out about it, these people will be rounded up in the same manor that they are now, correct? Then we have to determine where they’ve been and then process them through a deportation process?”

                  There are two kinds of asylum claims:

                  1) Affirmative.

                  An example of this would be people who walk up to a border checkpoint and request asylum.

                  2) Defensive.

                  An example would be people who are caught crossing the border illegally between checkpoints. They’re caught by border patrol, told they’re going to be deported, and then ask for asylum as a defense against deportation. They’re saying that if you deport them back to their home country, they’ll be persecuted.

                  In both cases, the asylum seeker is asked why they’re claiming asylum. Giving round numbers from memory, but about 30% AIR give reasons that have nothing to do with a legal asylum claim, and then they’re held pending deportation. I believe they can contest that and stay in a holding area pending a hearing if they wish, but they are not granted an asylum hearing. If the reason they give for claiming asylum is one of those covered by treaty, they’re given a hearing date, which is typically two years or more in the future. A large portion of them either never show up to their hearing or when they show up to their hearing, their request for asylum is denied by the judge. Ultimately, less than 10% of the people who request asylum are granted it.

                  Once you get a hearing, a couple of things can happen. The treaty on refugees prohibits us from treating asylum seekers any differently than U.S. citizens in terms of their eligibility for social programs. So, they’re eligible for rent assistance, SNAP benefits, Medicaid, etc. If they’re in a sanctuary city, and they don’t show up to their asylum hearing, they may still be eligible for local benefits, and they don’t have much to worry about in terms of being deported through the efforts of local police. A large portion of them simply become illegal aliens after not showing up to their hearing.

                  You get a work permit that’s valid until your hearing date, and the government may try to hold you until they can place you in a job program for refugees (they often end up in slaughterhouses, working for Chobani yogurt, and other places I’ve heard about. The government gives these companies money to pay part of the refugees’ salaries). While they’re in holding, waiting to be placed somewhere, family members in the U.S. can get them out quickly by sponsoring them, which happens a lot. Sponsorship means that if the person you’re sponsoring ends up on welfare, the government can come after you to recoup the cost to the taxpayers. No one has ever enforced that before, but Trump just started to a few months ago.

                  Like I said, more than 90% of them end up either as illegal aliens, leaving of their own accord, or being deported.

            3. So you’re in favor of the wall then?

      2. Don’t harsh Ken’s Trump boner.

        He has one job here, and that’s to explain why Trump is the bestest president ever, despite all appearances.

        1. Thank you for your well considered insight.

    3. That’s not a policy win just for The Donald, it seems to solve everybody’s problems. Who comes out worse in this?

  7. “…an example of a company that keeps “wages low by refusing to bargain with workers who technically work for small local McDonald’s franchises.””

    “Technically” the man lies.
    They are employed by the franchises, period. There is no “technically” involved.

    1. Yeah, well, let’s not get distracted by facts and logic.

      1. Yes! Let’s stick to rationality by discussing how Qanon infiltrated George Soros’ Secret Moon Base.

        1. Yeah, Sevo pointing out that McDonalds franchiser workers really are working for a franchise is just like . . .

          Is this Shrike?

          It might as well be.

          1. But if leading libertarian thinkers like Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi are indicating Illuminati links to Wall Street through Hillary Clinton and Sean Penn, maybe they’re getting their hooks into The Symbol of the Free West as well.

            And I’m not shrike. Was he also Mr Nice Guy?

            1. You come across like a retard. Try to engage what gray matter you have when you log in, or people will treat you like a retard.

              1. “Act like a dumbshit and they’ll treat you like an equal.”

                Almighty “Bob”

                1. Esmeralda Overdrive
                  July.26.2019 at 10:45 pm
                  “Act like a dumbshit and they’ll treat you like an equal.”
                  Almighty “Bob”

                  That would be fucking ignoramuses who are, indeed, your equal.

                  1. Yeah, Sevo. You’re the one who thinks that Hillary Clinton ran a global pedophilia ring from a small, suburban pizza shop.

                    And I’m the stupid one…?

                    1. Esmeralda Overdrive
                      July.26.2019 at 11:23 pm
                      “Yeah, Sevo. You’re the one who thinks that Hillary Clinton ran a global pedophilia ring from a small, suburban pizza shop.”
                      Which claim I have never been associated with in any way, shape or form?

                      “And I’m the stupid one…?”
                      Yes, indeedy, you fucking lefty ignoramus.

                    2. Yes Essie, you are indeed very fucking stupid. With your weak little mind I’m sure it’s all very difficult for you to understand.

              2. “You come across like a retard.”
                No, not ‘come across’. “Is” applies here.

                1. I “is” like a retard?

                  (golf clap)

                  1. No, EO isn’t “like” a retard; EO “is” a retard.
                    Is English new to you?

                  2. Esmeralda Overdrive
                    July.27.2019 at 12:03 am
                    “I “is” like a retard?
                    “(golf clap)”

                    BTW, retard, under how many socks have you made an ass of yourself here? Not sure I even remember the first, but you’ve been ID’d as a fucking lefty ignoramus at least 5 or six times.
                    Do you keep changing socks in the hopes no one recognizes the idiocy of your posts? Did your mommy tell you that you can fool people by drawing a mustache on your face?
                    Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you; make the world a better and measurably more intelligent place.

          2. “Is this Shrike?
            It might as well be.”

            Hard telling; the fucking lefty ignoramuses keep changing handles as if someone will take their bullshit as other than that since it comes from a new bullshitter.
            See below: I’m accused of thinking the hag ran a pedo op from a pizza parlor!
            That is an amazing bit of fantasy, but fucking lefty ignoramuses are nothing if not divorced from reality.

        2. Was that tin-foil hat on special?

          1. Who wants to know?

            1. Just those who laugh at you.
              Were you stupid enough to pay full prices or yet more stupid to buy on ‘special’ at 10% less and $30 shipping and handling?
              We’re just curious in what sort of stupid you specialize.

  8. Yeah, Pete, ask the clickbait farms how well going union has worked out for them.

  9. “It’s time to help our nation’s workforce become more resilient, inclusive, and flexible, and more easily adapt to our dynamic, ever-changing economy”

    How about “helping” the workforce actually develop more marketable value? You know, the knowledge and abilities that other people would want to pay (more) money for. Maybe we need a one page list of job skills/certifications/degrees/careers and the expected market pay at age 25, and we can give this to every high school freshman and then again to every college/trade school freshman. And sure, put Social Justice Warrior on the list–there will be room at the bottom.

    1. “Maybe we need a one page list of job skills/certifications/degrees/careers and the expected market pay at age 25, ”
      What the hell do high school counselers do if not this?

      1. Sit around and collect a paycheck.

        1. Fuck the hotter students?

      2. I don’t know, but given the claims that we have hoards of young people who can’t find good paying jobs (put aside the limited career opportunities for gender study majors), I would have to conclude that counselors and other educators are failing.

        Plus it would be fun to see such a list, and listen to the howls from those who ignore practicality while they promote “doing what you love”.

  10. “It’s time to help our nation’s workforce become more resilient, inclusive, and flexible, and more easily adapt to our dynamic, ever-changing economy,”

    So the government is going to stop interfering in worker/employer issues in particular, and in the economy in general?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…. ouch! Shit- I think I pulled something.

  11. I’m in a union and they pretty much allow the company to interpret the contract how they like. They collect the dues and don’t want members to assert the agreement under the contract. Instead of getting paid overtime for working next Saturday, their moving my schedule from Tuesday through Saturday, a violation of union contract.

    1. Pro-tip… the purpose of a union is to provide cushy jobs for the leadership. Rank and file? Pay yer dues and shut up.

    2. I had a similar experience when I was in a union. I was working for a union shop, so the union was far more interested in preserving its relationship with the shop than protecting any of the workers

  12. Pete claims to be a ‘capitalist’.
    “The late Joseph Buttigieg, who passed away last January, taught, beginning in 1980, at the University of Notre Dame, where, as the authors note, he “supported an updated version of Marxism that jettisoned some of Marx and Engel’s more doctrinaire theories, though he was undoubtedly Marxist.”
    There are certainly scores of Marxist professors in the academy, and clearly, Notre Dame students were able to live through the horrors of some of them having to take a course in which the Professor Buttigieg taught literary theory from a Marxist perspective.”
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-grotesque-red-baiting-of-mayor-pete-3
    thedailybeast goes on to (correctly, IMO) point out that the son is not to be painted with the sins of the father.
    But, given that the father was a well-known, unreconstructed, commie piece of shit, you would think the son, running for POTUS would make some comment to distance himself from that which he’d been indoctrinated for all those years. Crickets.
    Obo, when confronted with the racist asshole running the church he attended, at least (pathetically) claimed he was being ‘inclusive’ or some such bullshit.
    ——————
    The following is from Wiki and there’s no reason I can see to assume it’s other than what Pete’s publicist posted there:
    “Before graduating from college, Buttigieg worked as an investigative intern at WMAQ-TV, Chicago’s NBC news affiliate”
    And:
    “After earning his Oxford degree, he became a consultant at McKinsey & Company[28][29] and a fellow at the Truman National Security Project[30]. In 2007, while volunteering for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign,…”

    “Investigative intern”? Typist; my best guess; nothing to do with capitalism.
    He got his Oxford degree (in ‘studies’) in 2007; his gig as a ‘consultant’ in the same year; must have been a stop for a cup of coffee before starting to slop at the public trough, which the scum bag has done ever since.
    He’s a ‘capitalist’ as AOC is an ‘intellectual’.

  13. So… the moderate Mayor Pete is just another commie.

  14. Instead of getting paid overtime for working next Saturday, their moving my schedule from Tuesday through Saturday, a violation of union contract. norton.com/setup

  15. “I like a lot about Pete Buttigieg…unwillingness to go along with the most free-spending plans of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination (he’s against “free college for all,” for example)”

    But he is for free public college for low and middle income families, more support for historically black universities, medicare for all, higher pay for teachers, and more regulation. I don’t see much to like.

    1. Medicare for all will cost something like 40 trillion dollars. But he is not for free spending plans in reason land.

      1. Yeah why would anyone want to reform healthcare when it’s free right now.

        1. I love how Medicare for all is considered “reform” to you progs. Next, let’s “reform” telecommunications by outlawing email and text messaging and forcing everyone to use fax instead

          1. Better yet, let’s outlaw all automatic telephone exchanges. That will “create jobs” for tens of thousands of telephone operators too! It’s a win-win!

          2. I have a funny feeling you missed the point.

            1. Tony
              July.28.2019 at 6:20 pm
              “I have a funny feeling you missed the point.”

              No one cares. You’re far too stupid to make such a judgement.

  16. In the capitalist economic system unions are the natural compliment to a company’s management. The union allow labor the leverage to balance management power and to arrive at fair wages and working conditions. This in-turn limits the need for government to step in with regulations (like minimum wages). Pete Buttigieg and the Nick Gillespie would agree that the American economy has changed and unlike like other candidates Mayor Pete understands that we are not going back to the way things were. Mayor Pete is proposing ways to adjust and to make the economy more inclusive and so stronger. Nick Gillespie is just critiquing it with no real alternatives.

    1. “In the capitalist economic system unions are the natural compliment to a company’s management. The union allow labor the leverage to balance management power and to arrive at fair wages and working conditions.”
      Lefty opinions do not constitute arguments; they can and should be considered bullshit.
      ——————————
      “Nick Gillespie is just critiquing it with no real alternatives.”
      No unions; there’s your alternative.

      1. You should pay more attention to those arguments. You’re clearly too fucking dumb to ever be in management. Or perhaps you’re just clever enough to collect a disability check while you spew your endless substanceless nothingness all over the internet.

        1. “You should pay more attention to those arguments. You’re clearly too fucking dumb to ever be in management. Or perhaps you’re just clever enough to collect a disability check while you spew your endless substanceless nothingness all over the internet.”

          Given that I’ve managed various numbers of people during my career, I’d say your ‘spewing’ pretty much matches your norm, you fucking lefty ignoramus.

    2. “This in-turn limits the need for government to step in with regulations (like minimum wages). ”

      Especially all those union contracts that use minimum wage as the basis for union wages, right?

    3. “The union allow labor the leverage to balance management power and to arrive at fair wages and working conditions.”

      “Balance management power”? What a load of crap. One cannot be forced to accept unfair wages and working conditions against one’s will as long as the option of quitting exists.

      Nobody owes you a job on your terms.

      1. “One cannot be forced to accept unfair wages and working conditions against one’s will as long as the option of quitting exists.”

        Note the option of quitting does not always exist. If your middle age you may not be able to get another job. Say you worked for a number of years and your kid gets cancer. Quitting means losing health care. There are lots of reasons that quitting is not an option. It is easy to say quit if you don’t like it in the abstract, but it can be harder in real life.

        1. Maybe it’s tough to do and not the best of a poor set of choices, but slavery is no longer legal and the option of quitting always exists.

          1. Given that the choices may be poor would you still advise a person not to join a union but to quit?

            1. I didn’t advise that anybody do anything. Where did you get that idea?

            2. If I were to advise someone in the position you alluded to about regarding joining a union, I’d say don’t do it (assuming, of course, that anyone in such a position would be a motivated worker). Employers dealing with unions have to allow for the deadwood that comes along with union membership and a motivated worker has a much better chance of improving his situation without that anchor.

              1. I have a problem with the word “deadwood”. First I will acknowledge that yes there are some lazy, incorrigible people. But it has always been my experience that you work with a range of people in any job. Some are highly motivated to others its just a job. If the work get done does their motivation matter? What does concern me is that people may come to be seen “deadwood”. The person who put in 20 years, is still as motivated as the day he started, but is slower and has more health limitations or family obligations (a sick wife). This that person now deadwood? Or say you have a group of people who are motivated and get the job done, but management wants efficiency and brings in a new system. It hard for half the people to adjust. Are they now deadwood.
                This is why I think labor deserve some input and the only way to do that is as a group and that means a union.

                1. “I have a problem with the word “deadwood”.

                  Okay.

                  “First I will acknowledge that yes there are some lazy, incorrigible people.”

                  In other words, you acknowledge that there is deadwood.

                  “But it has always been my experience that you work with a range of people in any job.”

                  Sure- that’s true.

                  “Some are highly motivated to others its just a job.”

                  That’s true, too.

                  “If the work get done does their motivation matter?”

                  If your pay is determined in part by the performance of others, does it matter? I thought you cared about the guy whose kid has cancer and works hard because really needs the income he gets from his job.

                  People are individuals and perform differently. Unions insist that that reality be ignored and pay be based not on how well they perform but on how long they’ve been on the job. Good for the lazy and incorrigible, sure. But what about the hard workers?

                2. Moderation4ever
                  July.28.2019 at 8:10 am
                  “I have a problem with the word “deadwood”.”

                  Aw, were you ‘triggered’?
                  Regardless. you have a problem with reality.

            3. “Given that the choices may be poor would you still advise a person not to join a union but to quit?”

              Are you familiar with the term ‘loaded question’?

        2. “Note the option of quitting does not always exist.”

          Our poor victim lefty twit.
          You’re full of shit; It *always* exists.

    4. “In the capitalist economic system unions are the natural compliment to a company’s management. The union allow labor the leverage to balance management power and to arrive at fair wages and working conditions.”

      I accept that this may have been the case sometime in the mid 19th century, but then after decades of struggle/negotiation/whatever, government regulation stepped in to ensure the things that labor unions had traditionally fought for.

      “This in-turn limits the need for government to step in with regulations (like minimum wages).”

      See the point above… Now that government regulation largely covers the original raison d’etre of labor unions, what then is the purpose of a union? Do you think we should get rid of OSHA and the minimum wage? Because that would be the only intellectually consistent policy position. If not, then what is the union role?

      “Pete Buttigieg and the Nick Gillespie would agree that the American economy has changed and unlike like other candidates Mayor Pete understands that we are not going back to the way things were.”

      And yet it sounds very much like he wants to go back to the way things were when unions were – if not dominant – at least prevalent.

      “Mayor Pete is proposing ways to adjust and to make the economy more inclusive and so stronger. Nick Gillespie is just critiquing it with no real alternatives.”

      No, mayor Pete is suggesting that we Make America Great Again by going back to having widespread mandatory labor union membership. That’s dumb… And the alternative (as The Jacket points out) is to leave things as they are vis-a-vis unions and allow the rise of the gig economy to grant economic freedom to people who may have never previously imagined they could have it.

      1. “Mayor Pete is proposing ways to adjust and to make the economy more inclusive and so stronger. Nick Gillespie is just critiquing it with no real alternatives.”
        Yes, this is proggy bullshit on a stick and M4 deserves to have it jammed down his/her throat at every opportunity.
        For those (like the resident idiot here) who presume unions were the savior of ‘the working man!’, read “Meet You in Hell”, Standiford (no capitalist tool, he): The conflict at the Homestead US Steel plant was union thugs attacking the Pinkertons who were sent to secure the property.
        More importantly, the strike had to do with protecting the higher wages of the skilled workers; the laborers be damned!
        Union thugs are union thugs and lefty ignoramuses like Moderation4ever remain (uneducated) lefty ignoramuses.
        Much preferable to act as if you want to help someone than learn how you might really do so; the proggy way!
        Fuck off Moderation4ever.

  17. BTW, it’s also quite clear that the proggy ignoramus Moderation4ever chooses not to engage with those who point out how Moderation4ever is a fucking lefty ignoramus.
    Much as truman has decided to post his bullshit and sophistry without addressing the comments pointing out that s/he is full of shit, Moderation4ever now chooses to post his/her pile of shit without addressing the responses pointing out that the posts are piles of shit, I guess hoping that those who read his/her piles of shit will ignore the posts pointing out that Moderation4ever posts piles of shit.
    Are you happy your mommy loves you, Moderation4ever?
    Fuck off and die

  18. […] magazine’s Nick Gillespie finds “a lot” to like about Pete Buttigieg. He sees a candidate “who at his best represents a new […]

  19. Like I said before, an openly gay man is running for president of Tunisia. Shorty after I said that, the president of Tunisia died.

  20. […] plans. Yet he also backs national service, packing the Supreme Court with extra justices, doubling the number of unionized workers in the gig economy, and pushing broad new gun control laws. That’s no more moderate than Joe […]

  21. So wages for the middle class are going up 1% per year, while real monetary inflation is 9% per year. And somehow that’s supposed to convince me that wages are keeping up? Really?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.