4 ms·

Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. I think this might generally be correct however he seems to be more vehemently "Pro American Worker" an

Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. I think this might generally be correct however he seems to be more vehemently "Pro American Worker" and so far when that collides with his "Pro Business" stance the worker is currently winning. Attempting to get businesses to repatriate jobs is not necessarily a "pro-business" stance.

harryjo 10y ago
He's promoting _jobs_, but also promoting pollution and cuts to healthcare, wages, and job safety.
crisnoble 10y ago
What decisions has he made that are pro worker? I have heard that he has pushed to restart pipeline construction (pro business), freeze fedral hiring (anti worker), and kill ACA (anti worker, pro business).
- crusso 10y ago
  The pipeline will create jobs and decrease fuel costs (pro business and worker). Freezing federal hiring will decrease the tax and regulatory load shouldered by everyone (pro business and worker). The ACA was shown to have been sold to the workers based upon lies regarding costs and access to their doctors. It's imploding under its own weight. Further, if the ACA benefits anyone, it benefits people who don't work but receive subsidies. So getting rid of it is a decided plus for workers.
  - crisnoble 10y ago
    Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs, so is in no way pro worker. Employees of the government are workers too. The ACA benefits my wife who was able to quit her job to start a business without worrying about being denied healthcare for her pre-existing condition. The ACA benefits all workers in businesses who now are required to offer healthcare plans which meet a minimum standard. Workers will not benefit once businesses can go back to deciding that offering a group health insurance plan is an optional benefit.
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      "Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs" Jobs in government, not in private industry. Would you rather we all go on the gov payroll?
      - crisnoble 10y ago
        All I was trying to say that the current round of executive actions are being taken for businesses and without regards to effects on workers, but you put it more succinctly.
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Businesses would like to make their goods as cheap as possible (by using cheap labor outside the US). What he has proposed (tariffs) forces them to build here, hence the jobs are here.
        crisnoble 10y ago
        Business would like to make their goods as profitable as possible, they have never shown any willingness to pass on savings to customers.
        jakeogh 10y ago
        That's the point, they are supposed to make as much money as possible. That's why you need competition. If corp A's competitor is selling the same product at a lower price, then corp A loses out on the profit. It's a nice feedback loop.
      - breatheoften 10y ago
        Since we are speaking in ridiculous hyperbole -- if everyone worked for private industry and no one had the option to work for the government -- what do you expect would be the effect on the distribution of wage and labor benefits?
  - crisnoble 10y ago
    I agree that the pipeline will decrease fuel costs, and provide temporary construction jobs, however the net will be that the oil businesses will increase their profits and need fewer workers to transport the oil to market. Until workers can share equally in the profits of a business, I think it is dishonest to equate removing regulatory "burden" as pro business. Trickle down economics effects simply do not happen.
    - crusso 10y ago
      "Until workers can share equally in the profits of a business" Sharing equally in the productivity of the society is just communism. It fails every time because people have varying levels of productivity but when you compensate everyone equally no matter what effort they apply, you get a tragedy of the commons situation. Communism has been tried many times and has never been shown to be good for workers.
  - shagmin 10y ago
    I believe ACA mainly benefits people who work but don't make enough to pay for healthcare insurance. Medicaid would be for those who don't work at all (or make way too little). I think looking at it as a zero sum thing is framing it the wrong way anyway though.
- rconti 10y ago
  All of the pro-manufacturing-in-the-US, anti-import stuff.
  - crisnoble 10y ago
    I have yet to hear about any movement on those campaign talking points.
    - PacketPaul 10y ago
      He had a big meeting with manufacturers two days ago and is incentivising US manufacturing through the threat of tariffs.
    - rconti 10y ago
      Do threats not count as movement? What about threats that inspire (alleged) action? There has been quite a bit of both. Does it have to be an executive action? Traditionally, the President wasn't the one creating the laws to begin with. So if Congress passes a law and Trump signs it, is it his action then?

harryjo 10y ago

He's promoting _jobs_, but also promoting pollution and cuts to healthcare, wages, and job safety.

crisnoble 10y ago

What decisions has he made that are pro worker? I have heard that he has pushed to restart pipeline construction (pro business), freeze fedral hiring (anti worker), and kill ACA (anti worker, pro business).

crusso 10y ago
The pipeline will create jobs and decrease fuel costs (pro business and worker). Freezing federal hiring will decrease the tax and regulatory load shouldered by everyone (pro business and worker). The ACA was shown to have been sold to the workers based upon lies regarding costs and access to their doctors. It's imploding under its own weight. Further, if the ACA benefits anyone, it benefits people who don't work but receive subsidies. So getting rid of it is a decided plus for workers.
- crisnoble 10y ago
  Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs, so is in no way pro worker. Employees of the government are workers too. The ACA benefits my wife who was able to quit her job to start a business without worrying about being denied healthcare for her pre-existing condition. The ACA benefits all workers in businesses who now are required to offer healthcare plans which meet a minimum standard. Workers will not benefit once businesses can go back to deciding that offering a group health insurance plan is an optional benefit.
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    "Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs" Jobs in government, not in private industry. Would you rather we all go on the gov payroll?
    - crisnoble 10y ago
      All I was trying to say that the current round of executive actions are being taken for businesses and without regards to effects on workers, but you put it more succinctly.
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        Businesses would like to make their goods as cheap as possible (by using cheap labor outside the US). What he has proposed (tariffs) forces them to build here, hence the jobs are here.
        crisnoble 10y ago
        Business would like to make their goods as profitable as possible, they have never shown any willingness to pass on savings to customers.
        jakeogh 10y ago
        That's the point, they are supposed to make as much money as possible. That's why you need competition. If corp A's competitor is selling the same product at a lower price, then corp A loses out on the profit. It's a nice feedback loop.
    - breatheoften 10y ago
      Since we are speaking in ridiculous hyperbole -- if everyone worked for private industry and no one had the option to work for the government -- what do you expect would be the effect on the distribution of wage and labor benefits?
- crisnoble 10y ago
  I agree that the pipeline will decrease fuel costs, and provide temporary construction jobs, however the net will be that the oil businesses will increase their profits and need fewer workers to transport the oil to market. Until workers can share equally in the profits of a business, I think it is dishonest to equate removing regulatory "burden" as pro business. Trickle down economics effects simply do not happen.
  - crusso 10y ago
    "Until workers can share equally in the profits of a business" Sharing equally in the productivity of the society is just communism. It fails every time because people have varying levels of productivity but when you compensate everyone equally no matter what effort they apply, you get a tragedy of the commons situation. Communism has been tried many times and has never been shown to be good for workers.
- shagmin 10y ago
  I believe ACA mainly benefits people who work but don't make enough to pay for healthcare insurance. Medicaid would be for those who don't work at all (or make way too little). I think looking at it as a zero sum thing is framing it the wrong way anyway though.
rconti 10y ago
All of the pro-manufacturing-in-the-US, anti-import stuff.
- crisnoble 10y ago
  I have yet to hear about any movement on those campaign talking points.
  - PacketPaul 10y ago
    He had a big meeting with manufacturers two days ago and is incentivising US manufacturing through the threat of tariffs.
  - rconti 10y ago
    Do threats not count as movement? What about threats that inspire (alleged) action? There has been quite a bit of both. Does it have to be an executive action? Traditionally, the President wasn't the one creating the laws to begin with. So if Congress passes a law and Trump signs it, is it his action then?