US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[Ordacleaphobia]

Well, there are two rough buckets of people here -

1) contractors who work directly for the government on an hourly basis. Many of them I believe were just told not to come to work during the shutdown. they received no pay and no back pay.

2) Contractors who worked for the federal government on a salaried/project basis. I have a buddy in this boat and thankfully the worst was averted - because his project was funded through January at the start of the shutdown, he continued to work... But, had the shutdown extended into February, he would have had to keep going to work, but would not have been paid and would not have received back pay for this work. Which would have been financially tough, since he was the primary earner in his household and in short order his hot water heater and HVAC system had gone out, the former flooding his basement and requiring significant repairs.

Also, that second scenario kind of points to the issue with your second paragraph - I won't get into specifics with my salary, but ballparking it let's say I make about 6x what I did when I first started working in Boston, and 4x what I did when I first moved to my current city. Does that mean I could work without pay for several weeks to a month or two without ill effect? Today, yeah, I probably could, but I've been super diligent about saving. Even as recently as two years ago, though, I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck, exactly, but yeah, it'd have been pretty dire. The reason? Your fixed expenses tend to scale with your income. 10 years ago I was living in a house with three other roommates, splinting utilities four ways. Today I own a condo I pay a mortgage on that even with refinancing my way out of PMI at a really favorable rate I'm paying more than 3x as much to live in as I did my old apartment. While a lot of expenses I could scale back pretty quickly - stop drinking, eating mostly $0.10 ramen packages for meals, cancel my internet service, etc, things like the amount of housing you consume on a monthly basis are things you really can't adjust on the fly. At the present I could comfortably go a couple months without working, two years ago I could have gone a couple weeks without major effect... And six years ago, the year after I bought my place, I honestly don't know what I would have done without income. And that's with still driving the Toyota Camry I bought new maybe....14 years ago?

Idunno. A high nominal salary alone doesn't necessarily mean anything because most people, as soon as they can, stop making the sacrificies around housing they make when they're younger, and, well, housing in the DC area isn't exactly cheap.

Yeah I'm sure DC is pretty gnarly; not something I have much experience with either since I've never been.
I'm aware that a salary is a fixed figure who's true value will fluctuate depending on area; my assumption with that last statement was that since the pay is comparatively high here in this area, I would assume that similar projects would dictate a similar rate of pay elsewhere as well, since the whole point of prevailing wage is to guarantee a fair, market-value wage. Totally an assumption and not intended to be interpreted as anything other than a lightly educated guess.

I also totally get your point on how people tend to stop making compromises on certain areas when they start to scale their income up, but my point is that maybe they shouldn't.
For example, when I bought my house, I could have afforded to get a place that would have costed me an extra couple hundred a month. It would have been easy to push myself in that direction, and honestly, I wouldn't have even come close to missing a payment to date if I had done so. But I didn't, because that extra couple hundred a month would have tightened things up a bit to where if I were to suddenly lose my job or my car to any crazy circumstance out there, it would be really difficult to stop the hemorrhaging in a reasonable manner. I'm sure you made a similar decision on your condo. In this situation, I don't think we "compromised" in choosing where we live; both dwellings were more than adequate and I'm quite happy with my house. We just didn't overextend. I'm not talking about scaling down spending, I'm talking about budgeting costs (and probably a little bit of scaling down spending too, who am I kidding).

If you place yourself in a position where your budget is too tight to save (or you just don't save) and your expenses are high enough to where it would be tough to meet your budget should you be in a situation where you're forced to take a pay cut / different job / etc; you made a bad call somewhere imo.

 

[tedtan]

Fair enough, but I don't believe the 'validity' of the shutdown plays any role in whether or not it's a foreseeable event. They seem to happen pretty regularly; to the point where if I worked for the fed, yes, I absolutely would account for it.

I agree that this is something that people working for the government should take into account.

As for protecting people from themselves in this context, I'm conflicted. On one hand, nobody wants anyone to live in poverty and I am no exception. However, finances make things sticky. Especially for stuff like this, the only way to really 'help' that type of person is to give them the tools to help themselves and hope that they have the willpower to do so. With that in mind, I think our system is already set up this way more or less, no? Yes, I understand most of our big social programs are designed around already being broke, but you can't expect to be able to protect someone from simply being irresponsible. To quote Ron White, "you can't fix stupid." If you're the type to throw your rent money away on night out, I don't think anyone can save you but yourself.

Yeah, it ultimately comes down to the individual to help themselves (or at least stop hurting themselves), but I do make a distinction between a government agency and a private employer in this regard.

Whereas a private employer is subject to the profit motives of its owners and general market forces, the government agency rightly has no profit motives and is not subject to competition or other market forces. It is funded by taxpayers and ultimately exists to serve those same taxpayers. Setting aside the fact that shutting down the government fails to serve the taxpayers on the whole, I suggest that the government has a greater responsibility to look after its employees, including in cases that affect their income for extended periods of time, than does a private company because it exists for different purposes than the private company.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Yeah, it ultimately comes down to the individual to help themselves (or at least stop hurting themselves), but I do make a distinction between a government agency and a private employer in this regard.

Whereas a private employer is subject to the profit motives of its owners and general market forces, the government agency rightly has no profit motives and is not subject to competition or other market forces. It is funded by taxpayers and ultimately exists to serve those same taxpayers. Setting aside the fact that shutting down the government fails to serve the taxpayers on the whole, I suggest that the government has a greater responsibility to look after its employees, including in cases that affect their income for extended periods of time, than does a private company because it exists for different purposes than the private company.

I see. Sounds like we're circling back to the "should a shutdown even be an option" point, which I had deliberately not responded to because I don't have an answer
I don't know, man. I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to put it into practice.

 

[tedtan]

I don't know, man. I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to put it into practice.

Yeah, the concepts are easy. It's the implementation of the concept in such a way that it works in the real world that's a bitch.

 

[Drew]

I also totally get your point on how people tend to stop making compromises on certain areas when they start to scale their income up, but my point is that maybe they shouldn't.
For example, when I bought my house, I could have afforded to get a place that would have costed me an extra couple hundred a month. It would have been easy to push myself in that direction, and honestly, I wouldn't have even come close to missing a payment to date if I had done so.

Ok, I'll give you some hard numbers, then, since I suspect the markets are VERY different where I am than where you are. When I bought my place, I was spending $800 a month to rent one bedroom in a four bed apartment. I forgot exactly what my mortgage was when I first closed, back when it still included PMI, but I think it was more than triple that. And while that wasn't QUITE at the bottom of where condos in that area started, it wasn't far off - given how tight the market was, I'm not sure I COULD have found something "a couple hundred cheaper." I knew I was running a risk and if I lost my job or got fired I'd likely be screwed, but at the same time it was cheaper for me to buy this place than it would have been to rent a comparable 1BR or 2BR (mine's technically 2, though it would be a tight fit) so it was a matter of either renting a place with at least one othjer roommate, which at 31 or 32 I was reluctant to do, or rolling the dice and buying a place, during a period of generationaly low interest rates. Today my place is worth more than 50% more than it was when I bought it, so I cleaned up and my net worth is significantly higher than it would have been had I not bought the place I did.

But, overarching point, is that there really isn't a middle ground between "ok place with roommate(s)" and "literally any condo at all you can afford" in the area I live, and that's a pretty massive escalation of your monthly spend on housing. And, while I question the logic, home ownership is something we as a society push very hard as an "investment," and certainly it's one that paid off royally for me, both in quality of life and in economic terms. Considering the huge donut hole between renting and even a cheap condo, telling someone not to do it because they should be more "cautious" is sort of short-sighted, I'd say.

So, my experience (which is hardly unique) has been that as your income increases, even if we assume a prudent individual who spends responsibly (which for the vast majority of the time I am, and if we're going to be ultra-critical here the big outlay we're talking about is one that most Americans would call "the best investment you could ever make," by conventional wisdom), your expenses tend to increase as well, not linearly, but in distinct breakpoints, as you do things like going from renting to owning, or deciding you're well enough off to afford having a child, etc. So, when you point to a nominal salary of $50/hr as "that person is well enough off that they can afford to not get paid for a few weeks, as long as they're responsible with money," then the reality is that's not necessarily the case, and it depends on a lot of local factors, where they are in their lives (home owners? Children?), and pure dumb luck (like my buddy who was at risk of missing paychecks at a time when he was looking at 5-6 figure home repair bills due to flooding and a blown heater).

Idunno man. This is a very roundabout and tangential discussion, sure, but the gist is there are PLENTY of good, valid, and responsible reasons why even a prudent adult making what seems like a lot of money could struggle if they missed a couple paychecks.

 

[jaxadam]

Ok, I'll give you some hard numbers, then, since I suspect the markets are VERY different where I am than where you are. When I bought my place, I was spending $800 a month to rent one bedroom in a four bed apartment. I forgot exactly what my mortgage was when I first closed, back when it still included PMI, but I think it was more than triple that. And while that wasn't QUITE at the bottom of where condos in that area started, it wasn't far off - given how tight the market was, I'm not sure I COULD have found something "a couple hundred cheaper." I knew I was running a risk and if I lost my job or got fired I'd likely be screwed, but at the same time it was cheaper for me to buy this place than it would have been to rent a comparable 1BR or 2BR (mine's technically 2, though it would be a tight fit) so it was a matter of either renting a place with at least one othjer roommate, which at 31 or 32 I was reluctant to do, or rolling the dice and buying a place, during a period of generationaly low interest rates. Today my place is worth more than 50% more than it was when I bought it, so I cleaned up and my net worth is significantly higher than it would have been had I not bought the place I did.

But, overarching point, is that there really isn't a middle ground between "ok place with roommate(s)" and "literally any condo at all you can afford" in the area I live, and that's a pretty massive escalation of your monthly spend on housing. And, while I question the logic, home ownership is something we as a society push very hard as an "investment," and certainly it's one that paid off royally for me, both in quality of life and in economic terms. Considering the huge donut hole between renting and even a cheap condo, telling someone not to do it because they should be more "cautious" is sort of short-sighted, I'd say.

So, my experience (which is hardly unique) has been that as your income increases, even if we assume a prudent individual who spends responsibly (which for the vast majority of the time I am, and if we're going to be ultra-critical here the big outlay we're talking about is one that most Americans would call "the best investment you could ever make," by conventional wisdom), your expenses tend to increase as well, not linearly, but in distinct breakpoints, as you do things like going from renting to owning, or deciding you're well enough off to afford having a child, etc. So, when you point to a nominal salary of $50/hr as "that person is well enough off that they can afford to not get paid for a few weeks, as long as they're responsible with money," then the reality is that's not necessarily the case, and it depends on a lot of local factors, where they are in their lives (home owners? Children?), and pure dumb luck (like my buddy who was at risk of missing paychecks at a time when he was looking at 5-6 figure home repair bills due to flooding and a blown heater).

Idunno man. This is a very roundabout and tangential discussion, sure, but the gist is there are PLENTY of good, valid, and responsible reasons why even a prudent adult making what seems like a lot of money could struggle if they missed a couple paychecks.

And then throw in lawn service, car detailing, house cleaning, and pool service and that’s an extra $800 a month!

 

[Drew]

And then throw in lawn service, car detailing, house cleaning, and pool service and that’s an extra $800 a month!

Oh, here, that's "shoveling." I'd love to say it was something more than that, but nope. Just snow removal.

 

[BlackSG91]

;>)/

 

[tedtan]

And then throw in lawn service, car detailing, house cleaning, and pool service and that’s an extra $800 a month!

Only if you're hiring people who are legal and pay taxes.

 

[jaxadam]

Only if you're hiring people who are legal and pay taxes.

 

[Ralyks]

https://apple.news/ANtWYcPuXS-6vQUr-DK0rBw
Welp, Manafort is fucked.

 

[Drew]

yup.

 

[Ralyks]

Oh, and the National Emergency is happening. I'm expecting lawsuits right about..... 10 minutes ago.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Oh, and the National Emergency is happening. I'm expecting lawsuits right about..... 10 minutes ago.

This is probably the best net outcome.

Even if the wall gets built, it sets a precedent for the POTUS to declare actual things "emergencies" like gun violence and healthcare.

It also completely relieves the Dems of responsibility. They stood strong, they compromised a little in good faith, and POTUS went and had a tantrum. They come out looking pretty good in all this, all things considered.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

https://apple.news/ANtWYcPuXS-6vQUr-DK0rBw
Welp, Manafort is fucked.

Manafukt*

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

This is probably the best net outcome.

Even if the wall gets built, it sets a precedent for the POTUS to declare actual things "emergencies" like gun violence and healthcare.

It also completely relieves the Dems of responsibility. They stood strong, they compromised a little in good faith, and POTUS went and had a tantrum. They come out looking pretty good in all this, all things considered.

Lame. I wanted to see more Govt Shutdown induced chaos. You know, shit melting down, the country coming to an end, etc. I know it's schadenfreude, but I'm an entropy fan, and I love watching things go to shit. Why you might ask? Because society and civilization are forced ideas (as in something that took a lot of effort for nothing, rather than something that happened naturally) and everyone's fake bullshit will go away quite quickly when Rome burns to the ground. Or in this case, western civilization. Both sides want to watch it go to shit; they just want to control and have say over how and why it does.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Lame. I wanted to see more Govt Shutdown induced chaos. You know, shit melting down, the country coming to an end, etc. I know it's schadenfreude, but I'm an entropy fan, and I love watching things go to shit. Why you might ask? Because society and civilization are forced ideas (as in something that took a lot of effort for nothing, rather than something that happened naturally) and everyone's fake bullshit will go away quite quickly when Rome burns to the ground. Or in this case, western civilization. Both sides want to watch it go to shit; they just want to control and have say over how and why it does.

What is your position in life where this is an option?

I know you've mentioned being in school. I known college wasn't all keggers and panty raids when I went, but it gets better dude. Promise.

Millennials are such a bummer.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

What is your position in life where this is an option?

I know you've mentioned being in school. I known college wasn't all keggers and panty raids when I went, but it gets better dude. Promise.

Millennials are such a bummer.

Millennials? I realized my love of watching shit devolve into whatever the fuck each succeeding year being worse and worse from an old hippie comedian who is dead. And I'm rather content and happy; I just enjoy seeing everyone's idiotic "problems" made to look foolish by real life issues spinning out of control and crashing into shit like a 500 ft Tasmanian Devil.

I know we like to pretend we've "advanced so far" and we've "got it so much better," but we truly do not.

 

[Explorer]

I've been a little busy in real life, but something I've noticed recently in right-wing commentary is a marked hoatility towards actual workers. @Ordacleaphobia is merely continuing a trend which we've seen from the Republicans from the top on down, including the hostility towards companies hurt by Trump's tariffs like Harley Davidson.

I've asked my more conservative, blue-collar friends about this hostility, and further discussion has led to a surprising number of them renouncing the current Republican party.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I've been a little busy in real life, but something I've noticed recently in right-wing commentary is a marked hoatility towards actual workers. @Ordacleaphobia is merely continuing a trend which we've seen from the Republicans from the top on down, including the hostility towards companies hurt by Trump's tariffs like Harley Davidson.

I've asked my more conservative, blue-collar friends about this hostility, and further discussion has led to a surprising number of them renouncing the current Republican party.

It's just a continuation of the old "bootstraps" drum they've been beating for decades.

"Anyone not as successful as me is obviously doing something wrong."

Similar to the old "When I use the system, it's being cunning, when you use the system, it's thievery."

The overarching message is the same: "fuck you, I got mine".