Hacker News Reader

In the context of healthcare, the shared responsibility provisions are often called job killing:

https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/questions-...

It's more expensive to have 50 employees than 49.

Also, a green card doesn't really expire, people overstay travel and work permits. A green card is for immigrants that have permanent permission to stay.

Immigration policy certainly has lots of discretionary enforcement. DACA is a big example. I think it's reasonable and the right thing to do, but it is discretionary enforcement of immigration law.

Thanks for that! I wonder if that's better solved by more logical regulation rather than deregulation.

You're right, my use of green card is incorrect -- it's visa. Green cards do expire, though, after 10 years if I'm remembering correctly (it almost happened to me).

I just looked up DACA, thanks for pointing that out. Am I misreading it on Wikipedia?[0] It doesn't seem very discretionary from that second paragraph of requirements and guidelines. That seems pretty concrete.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_...

DACA itself is an exercise of executive discretion.

It depends on what your goals are.

Repealing the ACA and cutting taxes is pretty well in keeping with stated Republican goals (one of the stopping blocks they have for their repeal is the group of conservatives that think it leaves too much government in the insurance system).

DACA is discretionary in the sense that the government has information that the registrants are not following a regular immigration process and still is not deporting them. "Deferred action" is discretionary enforcement.

> "Deferred action" is discretionary enforcement.

Not deferring action is also discretionary enforcement, it's just a different choice on how to apply the same discretion.

I will try to represent the opposing viewpoint here, since you ask a lot of questions.

> This isn't going to happen, at least not anytime soon, though there are attempts to try[0]. America doesn't have the infrastructure to bring back manufacturing things like the iPhone[1].

So your message to flyover America is to just give up ? Good luck with that. This is a problem. It needs a solution. Let's stop complaining about how it's unsolvable and change it.

And let's face facts here : an import tariff on everything (like every country except the US has, mostly) will help. Finding policies that will help do this is pretty easy.

There needs to be a solution for jobs and economic activity in flyover America. A solution different from calling them white trash racists and abandoning them.

> Deregulation of what exactly? What's the regulation that's prohibiting "hiring more people"?

Are you joking ? Let's take everyone's favorite regulation : the ACA. The ACA is making it much more expensive to hire more people, and thereby preventing people getting hired to a certain extent. Raising minimum wage, same thing.

> On who/what? Citizens? Corporations? What's fair? How do you increase military spending, then, if you lower taxes and are already slashing other budgets?

You slash other budgets more.

> Can you provide examples of un-enforcement? As I understand it, most illegal immigration comes from people who immigrate legally on a green card that expires and just don't leave.[3]

Some 12 million immigrants are illegal aliens. That's half a percent of the population, and 12 million enforcement failures. Furthermore, legal immigration can be reduced as well.

Note that this isn't racist, or even anti-immigration. The goal is not to be anti-immigrant. The goal is to protect the status of the working class by lowering supply in the labor market. Despite the unemployment figures (which is really only everyone who lost a job in the past 12 weeks), there is a massive job shortage in many parts of the US.

Will this make cleaning silicon valley toilets more difficult and expensive ? Yes. That's good.

>Note that this isn't racist, or even anti-immigration. The goal is not to be anti-immigrant. The goal is to protect the status of the working class by lowering supply in the labor market. Despite the unemployment figures (which is really only everyone who lost a job in the past 12 weeks), there is a massive job shortage in many parts of the US.

>Will this make cleaning silicon valley toilets more difficult and expensive ? Yes. That's good.

If you were looking to advance the status of the working class as a final goal, there are several other things you would do first before talking about deregulation, immigration overhauls, or austerity. A short list:

* Raise taxes on the rich, and invest the money in infrastructure, schools, and civic life. You want to push up wages, you hire people directly.

* Move from the ACA to single-payer health-care. This reduces expenses on bureaucracy and bullshit all around the economy, frees people to pursue entrepreneurship, and frees people to change jobs -- all good for the working class!

* Shore up Social Security by lifting the contribution cap. People who make $120k/year are not working-class, and they can afford to pay taxes so that the working class can afford to retire in dignity. The more elderly working-class people can retire, the more jobs are freed up.

* Nationalize natural-resource extraction industries, pour the profits into the national coffers, and use those to reduce taxes and increase wages for the working-class people in those industries. This will especially help in industries where competition has pushed wages and prices to near-zero, most employers are conglomerates rather than small proprietorships, but the products remain essential. For example, farming.

* Encourage the formation of worker cooperatives over other forms of business.

* Strengthen labor unions. Revamp the Taft-Hartley Act to bring back the powers organized labor had in the mid-1930s New Deal period. Pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

* Break up all monopolies and oligopolies. This is a convenient alternative to nationalization.

* Universal overtime pay for everyone who works more than 40 hours/week, no matter their job role. If they work for a living, they get overtime pay.

Your proposals don't sound at all like they're designed to strengthen workers against management and owners. They sound like they're designed to do the opposite: strengthen owners and managers in exploiting labor as cheaply as possible.

> Raise taxes on the rich, and invest the money in infrastructure, schools, and civic life. You want to push up wages, you hire people directly.

Coming from a country with a vastly bigger public sector than the US, allow me to say : no. Thanks. Don't do this. I'm not against public sector jobs, but I am against the government (or large companies supported by the government) taking care of anything that can realistically be done by anyone else.

> Shore up Social Security by lifting the contribution cap. People who make $120k/year are not working-class, and they can afford to pay taxes so that the working class can afford to retire in dignity. The more elderly working-class people can retire, the more jobs are freed up.

The numbers don't work. And the numbers are positively disastrous starting 10 years or so in the future. This is generally true about your raise taxes ideas.

When push comes to shove, money represents value. The only way to provide more goods and services to the elderly is to have everyone work more, produce more. Tax raises cannot affect this, in fact they make it harder.

But it would depend on what tax to raise. I think I'd most like either a direct wealth tax, or a land value tax. With serious punishments for cheating with undeclared wealth or colluding with government to lower land value. Move the tax burden away from labour.

> Strengthen labor unions. Revamp the Taft-Hartley Act to bring back the powers organized labor had in the mid-1930s New Deal period. Pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

I like the idea of strengthening unions. Sounds like a great idea.

> Break up all monopolies and oligopolies. This is a convenient alternative to nationalization.

Whilst I definitely agree in the case of Comcast, I'm not sure this would work well in general.

> Universal overtime pay for everyone who works more than 40 hours/week, no matter their job role. If they work for a living, they get overtime pay.

Sounds like a good idea, except perhaps that it's too easy to cheat rules like this.

I have yet to see any sensible answers to these questions which I, too, have asked a few people. Judging by the tone in which the original statements were posed, I do not expect today to be any different.

I don't need to cite evidence for common sense. clearly you have none.

This is almost the exact response I expected. You had a chance to inform someone on your position and instead you chose to personally attack their intelligence as though they were beneath you. This is the route an angry child would likely have chosen, is it not?

Everyone that reads your response will likely assume that you didn't have anything to back up your ill-informed position on the matter. Having seen this frequently on the internet, I wonder if this is the reason your account is new.

I'm a little disappointed in the response, myself. I had hoped to diffuse the tension in the tone and simultaneously get insight into the perspective, though neither seemed to happened.

This, unfortunately, leads me to wonder if people with such hostile perspectives are too proud to ever concede an argument (and thus admit they are wrong) or if they consider their understanding too superior and complex to explain to others if they don't already "get it". Both of which are signs of serious arrogance.

How do we, as a society, move past these internal walls that keeps us from having meaningful dialogue?