5 ms·

The people the DOJ claims are discriminated against (asylees and refugees) can't vote. The issue is SpaceX claiming they can only hire citizens (who can vote)

The people the DOJ claims are discriminated against (asylees and refugees) can't vote. The issue is SpaceX claiming they can only hire citizens (who can vote) and permanent residents (who can't vote).

golemiprague 3y ago
[dead]
solardev 3y ago
[flagged]
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Biden (and Trump) has marked a shift towards industrial policy, I think the neoliberal cosmopolitan globalism era may be coming to a close - or at least become as hotly contested an issue among the Dems as pro-war neoconservatism has among the Republicans. I mean "pro-union neoliberal globalists" is already a term with quite a lot of tension in it.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Yes, it's a fair point (and I hope you're right, as a mostly working-class person myself), but it's also not entirely incompatible. It doesn't cost major companies very much to treat their workers just a LITTLE better. And who earns all the big bucks these days... mostly tech and finance, which are already globalized and tend to treat their workers better than, say, Starbucks. Maybe in a decade or two unionized global capital will be just as much an invisible norm as, say, weekends. But hey, if that doesn't come to pass and both parties instead focus more domestically... great, I say! I'd love for us to clean up our house.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Starbucks is already globalized, there is no Google in China but there is Starbucks. I don't think "global unions" are possible, but if they were the concessions would likely have to be more than "a little."
    - tracker1 3y ago
      But the investors (and board, executives, etc) want to see a 21% profit, instead of the 18.5% that they would see if they gave their employees appropriate raises, benefits and appropriate safety protocols instead of pushing them harder.
  - tracker1 3y ago
    I don't think of neoliberal globalists as actually pro union other than lip service. Ironically, there are a lot of conservatives that are perfectly happy to see unionization efforts in the working class, and have never been in favor of the level of corporatism (nearly fascist at some levels) that we currently see in the US.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      I think we are rhetorically incompatible, but I hope you never have to live under an actually fascist regime.
      - tracker1 3y ago
        I'm not saying it's truly fascism, which I consider a twist of corporate based socialism... I'm saying, that in some circumstances with the level of corporate protectionism, it isn't far off of economic fascism in terms of say Defense/Weapons, Agriculture and Pharmaceutical industries; which aren't exactly free market capitalism. I am expressly not AntiFa and not communist or in support of such regimes or the direction that they want to go in.

golemiprague 3y ago

[dead]

solardev 3y ago

[flagged]

whimsicalism 3y ago
Biden (and Trump) has marked a shift towards industrial policy, I think the neoliberal cosmopolitan globalism era may be coming to a close - or at least become as hotly contested an issue among the Dems as pro-war neoconservatism has among the Republicans. I mean "pro-union neoliberal globalists" is already a term with quite a lot of tension in it.
- solardev 3y ago
  Yes, it's a fair point (and I hope you're right, as a mostly working-class person myself), but it's also not entirely incompatible. It doesn't cost major companies very much to treat their workers just a LITTLE better. And who earns all the big bucks these days... mostly tech and finance, which are already globalized and tend to treat their workers better than, say, Starbucks. Maybe in a decade or two unionized global capital will be just as much an invisible norm as, say, weekends. But hey, if that doesn't come to pass and both parties instead focus more domestically... great, I say! I'd love for us to clean up our house.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Starbucks is already globalized, there is no Google in China but there is Starbucks. I don't think "global unions" are possible, but if they were the concessions would likely have to be more than "a little."
  - tracker1 3y ago
    But the investors (and board, executives, etc) want to see a 21% profit, instead of the 18.5% that they would see if they gave their employees appropriate raises, benefits and appropriate safety protocols instead of pushing them harder.
- tracker1 3y ago
  I don't think of neoliberal globalists as actually pro union other than lip service. Ironically, there are a lot of conservatives that are perfectly happy to see unionization efforts in the working class, and have never been in favor of the level of corporatism (nearly fascist at some levels) that we currently see in the US.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    I think we are rhetorically incompatible, but I hope you never have to live under an actually fascist regime.
    - tracker1 3y ago
      I'm not saying it's truly fascism, which I consider a twist of corporate based socialism... I'm saying, that in some circumstances with the level of corporate protectionism, it isn't far off of economic fascism in terms of say Defense/Weapons, Agriculture and Pharmaceutical industries; which aren't exactly free market capitalism. I am expressly not AntiFa and not communist or in support of such regimes or the direction that they want to go in.