Not going to pass, but solid effort to get the idea out there to give it time to simmer as the electorate and representatives churn over time. Expect progressives to add this as a talking point during future election cycles.
It's very difficult to read and honestly comes off as immature, as if the writer has an incredibly limited grasp of English sentence and paragraph structure.
Seriously tho, google “boomer ellipses” and you’ll find many theories for why people do this.
It seems to me that Republicans have opposed abortion more consistently than either party has acted on any other policy position. (Not totally consistently, but more consistently than on anything else.) It's hard to view that as hypocrisy. You can oppose it, hate it, whatever, but they do seem to be following through on their position.
And, what progress have they made? They went from a 7-2 liberal Supreme Court majority in 1972 to a 6-3 conservative majority today. That's where they made progress on defeating abortion.
I’m not advancing some jaded, cynical conspiracy theory. This is simply a mechanic of modern American politics, same as how a phone app operates on a structure that most users are unaware of. I say this not to sway you to one side or another, just be aware that like you have your professional hidden world, politics has its as well.
It’s a reflection of the dysfunction that is currently playing out. Democrats hold a trifecta in the Federal Government and can’t even pass a law to make abortion legal throughout the country. They absolutely have the power to do so. They could have threatened SCOTUS with passing this law if SCOTUS decided to let the State Abortion bans stand. But they didn’t.
They also can’t end the filibuster without Joe Manchin.
The Senate is split 50/50 so the have the slimmest possible majority, and abortion is a hill nearly all Republicans are willing to die on.
I’m not sure this has anything to do with the current distinction unless by the current distinction you mean the nearly equal split.
Vs. what he said:
> > They also can’t end the filibuster without Joe Manchin.
They don't have a majority without Joe Manchin, and therefore cannot change Senate rules without his participation.
With a 50/50 Senate, Democrats need Manchin more than he needs them.
He’s also the only Democrat who can possibly win in WV where trump won by 40 points.
> but he’s not the only centrist in the party
Legalized abortion isn’t an issue that centrists oppose.
I feel like 32 hours is too big of a step, but 36 hours is an idea I've been advocating for awhile.
It's a hedge against automation; it should push up the price of labor by reducing supply; and it just makes life significantly better for everyone.
This wouldn't be a "hedge against automation", it would be a catalyst for further automation. You'll reach the point where the only sensible thing for a company to do is to automate.
It may make life better for those who are still employable in a market where it's cheaper to pay a few engineers to design automation than to pay all the overtime you'd otherwise need to be shelling out. And in the long run (100 years out) we'll probably be better off for the automation. But in the short run intentionally making people harder to employ doesn't make any sense to me.
If it's inevitable that x% of jobs are going to be automated in the next decade, reducing the supply of labor by x% is a reasonable hedge. Yes, it may mean that x+y% (where y is something significantly less than x) are actually automated, but IMO we are still better off.
The thing is, there's some jobs that are very resistant to automation, and this will tend to spread them over more people and push their wages up by reducing supply.
> But in the short run intentionally making people harder to employ doesn't make any sense to me.
Right now there's a lot of talk about increasing minimum wage. I think shortening the work week is better, because it spreads the higher skilled jobs around more people and doesn't exclude people whose current labor value is less than a higher minimum wage from the work force.
The 40 hour work week has been good for everyone. Do you believe 40 is the ideal number, and can't be improved upon by moving it in either way? I think that:
- looming issues that may reduce demand for labor
- increased productivity that the benefits of have almost all accrued to capital instead of to labor
- other developed countries doing OK at 36
all argue that 40 hours may have been ideal for 1940 and something more like 36 hours is ideal for now.