538 We’re All To Blame For The Shutdown: That’s what the game theorists say, anyway.
Now there is an article I can agree with. All the folks on the Far Left and Far Right demanding their way are the cause for the shutdown.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
91 comments:
Who is included in the "We". Is Vladimir Putin included? Are the American people who voted for Trump included? How about Americans who voted for the winner of the popular vote?
It's interesting to me that the master dealmaker isn't doing what anyone who wants a deal does? He doesn't seem to have asked himself, what can I bring to the table that the other side wants. Clearly, the Democrats won't negotiate the opening of the government. What do Democrats want in exchange for a wall?
--Hiram
Do theorists argue and/or believe that authorities who refuse to negotiate with terrorists bear responsibility for what terrorists do? If so, is that the consideration that should govern action going forward? Should we cave in to terrorist demands to avoid responsibility? In doing so, would we be incurring responsibility for other terrorist actions going forward?
--Hiram
One of the things I love to say about the Republican view of personal responsibility is that what it comes down to is that some other person is responsible. Leave it to liberal game theory liberal academics to remind us that we are all responsible for what is happening to our nation, not just those who voted for Trump.
--Hiram
What is missing is that Congress as a whole failed to do their most fundamental job of passing a the budget bills by Oct. 1. After that it's an irresponsible game of chicken. And also ignored is that Trump offered a DACA-for-wall deal, with three times the DACA, and Democrats refused it. I doubt "game theory" applies to irrational actors playing political games. Trump is trying to solve a problem (see his complete proposal), and Democrats are trying to prevent him from doing it.
There is no question that budget bills could pass both houses. That's why McConnell won't bring them to the floor.
--Hiram
Should either party allow the continuing of government operations to become an issue for bargaining? Should either party link the continuing of government operations to be linked to unrelated policy issues? Were Republicans wrong when they objected to President Obama's use of government shuddowns as a bargaining chip?
--Hiram
Perhaps the problem is that too much policy becomes tied to the budget, or that the budget is too big a deal in our economy as a whole, usurping decisions that should be left to the states, or to the people. Maybe a sustained shutdown is just exactly what we need, followed by setting priorities and cutting the budget. Surely some of these "non-essential" employees are non-essential?
I think it is simply the extremes of both sides running the show that is causing the problem...
The No DACA / pardons people
and
The No Wall people
The problem with that "centrist" philosophy is that one side is right and the other is wrong. The No Wall people are wrong, and hypocrites to boot. $5 Billion is a rounding error in the budget and ought to be a priority over the many other things that should not be, all in a budget that should have been passed AND BALANCED on Oct. 1. I was going to agree both sides are incompetent, but I don't think that is fair to the half who find themselves, for whatever reason, on the right side of at least this one small issue.
So the people that want DACA AND walls are in the right? With Trump at the top of that list?
"...all in a budget that should have been passed AND BALANCED on Oct. 1."
We know who to blame for that failure, as they controlled both houses and the Presidency. Funny...and unsurprising...that you fail to place the blame correctly.
Moose
Trump is an idiot...
He could have had his $25 Billion but he said no...
Sorry, but considering 60 votes in the Senate, the GOP did NOT "control both houses." As for the Vox piece, well, it's a Vox piece. "Common Sense" didn't really get a vote. Trump's current proposal is far better, and could be made better still if Democrats really gave a rip about the country or about the immigrants.
And you can say the shutdown is about immigration and the wall, but it's a matter of politics vs common sense in my book.
Please list here the concessions that Republicans made to attempt to get Dems on board with the budget. Thanks.
Moose
Apparently the Dems were not interested in "getting on board" because the budget never happened, just repeated CRs. How many compromises did the Dems advance to get an actual budget rather than fighting to a stalemate-- a CR?
And the common refrain continues.
“It is THEIR fault!”
"How many compromises did the Dems advance..."
Is it the minority party's job to negotiate in order to pass their agenda? They're not the ones holding the gavel.
It's just more evidence that Republicans have no idea how to govern. If they want to pass their agenda, it's their job to get it to pass, not the other party's job.
Moose
No, we're not all responsible for the shutdown. The guy who has accepted and then rejected multiple bipartisan deals over the last two years is. (And, right now, you can add Mitch McConnell to the list, for refusing to let a bill that would end the shutdown get a vote in the Senate.)
Yep...
“It is THEIR fault!”
Gee, John. Now you sound just like the manbaby you voted for.
Moose
You can "both sides" this one until the cows come home, but at least twice Chuck and Nancy had a deal with the President and every time, he changed his mind. I fail to see how that is the fault of Democrats. It's clear the President is negotiating in bad faith. It's on the President now to fix this problem.
Let's not forget that it's been Democrats throughout the years that have offered compromises over and over again that Republicans have walked away from. Take for instance, the "Grand Bargain" where Barack Obama offered up entitlement cuts -- the thing Republicans fantasize about and the Democratic base tries to fight -- in exchange for a tiny tax increase (one that was 1/8 the size of the permanent spending cuts). But the wackos in the Freedom Club wouldn't go for it. That's just one of a myriad of examples.
The reality is that the House did pass a budget in late Dec. that hopefully the President would sign.
It is the Senate Dems who refused it...
Yes I think both sides and their voters own this unfortunate situation.
The Senate passed a bill 100-0 in December that Trump said he would sign, and then he changed his mind.
You can't wave your hands and make that magically disappear.
Trump said he would own it and take on the mantle of the shutdown. Trump is a Republican. Trump and the Republican party are responsible. It's a very simple determination to make.
Moose
Well, it does take two sides to make an impasse. The devil is in the details, so which side has more the devil? Trump asked Nancy if he re-opened the government would she vote to fund the wall and she said something to the effect of "absolutely not." A compromise, it seems to me, would be for both sides to get what they want.
Sean,
Everyone has the prerogative to change their mind, even the President.
The question is what can be passed that balances the wishes of the Senate, House, President and their supporters?
Jerry,
This seems incorrect... :-)
"A compromise, it seems to me, would be for both sides to get what they want."
Yes. Incorrect. Both sides want border security, but only one side wants to use something other than medieval solutions. One side wants to open the government and negotiate proper 21st century border security, which would rightly focus our efforts on our ports and airports rather than the border with Mexico, especially considering that there are now fewer illegal Mexicans in the country than there used to be (for the mathematically challenged, that means more are leaving than coming).
Anyone who supports the wall is a moron.
Moose
Well I am a moron then.
Now here is my rationale for a hardened boundary that keeps folks from walking across the border where ever they wish.
As soon as they cross... They become a problem that US personnel have to deal with…
And unless your advanced security system includes motion sensitive gun turrets, it will not reduce border incursions. It will just reduce the likeliness of undetected border incursions.
Why do you want to burden our border patrol officers, courts, etc like this?
Please remember that ~14,000 people per month are being processed today.
That number is way too high.
Or as I asked before, do you want to create huge refugee camps on the borders to hold them in until their case is heard?
Why do you want to destroy an exansive wilderness ecosystem? Why do you want the government to take people’s hard earned land away from them? Neither of those positions is conservative.
Moose
the GOP in Congress could end the shutdown by voting to fund the govt. They could work on the border security issue after people are back to work and the govt is running again.
Moose,
I am pretty sure most critters can get through the slats.
I support the use of eminent domain for the public good. This is for the public good...
Also, those people will be paid for their land.
Finally, ~5 billion only adds to the existing fencing. Their will still be plenty of open areas where a lot of the wild life lives.
Laurie,
If the DEMs are adamantly unwilling to give more than $1 for the wall... Why bother negotiating?
This is a cool map
You can even fly over sections.
I think they want to convert more of that vehicle barrier fencing into pedestrian fencing. At least in high traffic areas.
If black bears and big horn sheep and cougars can get through the wall, people can get through the wall.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Moose
“If the DEMs are adamantly unwilling to give more than $1 for the wall... Why bother negotiating?”
The democrats offered funding for border security. Why dont you want secure borders?
Moose
I guess those 3 critters will need to stay one side of the fence or the other.
I think that strong border barriers are part of the solution for the reasons I noted above.
Here's a compromise: Let's give the Democrats what they wanted 3-4 years ago, which was $25 billion for border security. Face it, the Democrats are being entirely, shamelessly and outrageously political. The ONLY way we get border security is if the Democrats yield on the physical barrier at the border, in exchange for ending the shutdown. Now if you want to agree with Democrats that a physical barrier isn't needed, then I suggest you go talk to Jim Acosta about whether walls work, or not.
"I guess those 3 critters will need to stay one side of the fence or the other."
Which will doom them, particularly since those on the U.S. side will have no access to the most reliable water source, the river. I get that Republicans don't care about the planet and its inhabitants, but I won't be the one saying "I wish I had said/done something." when it's too late.
Moose
Jim Acosta only proved that we already have walls and fences in the correct places, but then again, the nuances of the border issue are unsurprisingly lost on you and most Republicans.
Moose
Border security is certainly an issue can be explored. But bear in mind, the border is just as much in your local airport as it is between the United States and Mexico.
There are lots of things Democrats want now. We don't have to go back three, four, or a hundred years ago to find out what they wanted then. The problem is, Trump doesn't view deals in terms of an exchange among rough equals, he sees deals in terms of leverage, and he doesn't have leverage. Caught as he is between Democrats and his own base, he is without leverage, and hence without the capacity to make deals.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Having just spent a lot of time in international airports, I can assure you that they have extremely effective physical barriers to ensure people do not just walk into our country without permission.
"Everyone has the prerogative to change their mind, even the President."
Sure. But after the President says yes to multiple bipartisan deals and then walks away from them, the problem isn't with everyone else. The problem is with the President.
"The question is what can be passed that balances the wishes of the Senate, House, President and their supporters?"
When the kidnapper shoots the hostage, you don't pay the ransom anyway.
"I can assure you that they have extremely effective physical barriers to ensure people do not just walk into our country without permission."
How do we get them to leave our country when their visa expires?
Moose
Sean,
He just refused to sign the final Senate bill... No shooting involved...
Moose,
We have their personal information, I assume it is just helping ICE to do their job. Not provide them sanctuary.
"We have their personal information, I assume it is just helping ICE to do their job."
So it seems that you don't really put much thought or energy into the vast majority of illegal residents. But that wall, dammit, that's important.
Moose
It looks like your vast majority comment is way off.
And we know who they are and why we allowed them in
Okay, so it's not a vast majority.
Then what is the rationale for not giving a shit about them compared to your meltdown about poor, brown-skinned people coming in from Mexico? Oh...I think we have an answer.
Moose
Moose, is it really necessary to denigrate people and call them racist just because they disagree with you on a policy matter? Doesn't that just show the weakness of your argument?
And more importantly, it is just silly...
Look at Table 2 for a List of Countries with Highest Overstays
That is quite a mix of races.
"...call them racist..."
"That is quite a mix of races."
Interesting that you thought it was about race and didn't notice at all that it was about economic status. I'm not surprised, but it's still interesting to have a hunch verified.
Moose
I mean, you assumed I was pointing out racism, when anyone with a functioning brain would know that people of a wide variety of races overstay their visas. You're so funny and predictable in your attitude towards poor people.
Moose
Overstayed Visas
Moose
Moose,
Well you did say "poor, brown-skinned people coming in from Mexico"... 2 of the 3 do indicate race. And the third could imply unfortunate or poverty...
And yes we do have a lot of our own poor and under educated people in the USA who are struggling in our service industry and highly automated economy...
Why again would you want to bring more of these individuals in?
How will it impact our poor and under educated legal citizens?
You can rationalize your response all you want. You're good at that. I don't buy it.
A. Our poor struggle because the wealth is being concentrated at the top.
B. Most illegal immigrants are hard workers. All are ineligible to receive public money. It has been shown that they are a net benefit to our economy. Ideally, this would help our own poor (a rising tide, etc.), but...see item A.
Moose
I of course disagree with A... But I agree with the most of B...
Unfortunately...
The poor get poorer because there are ever more of low academic folks chasing fewer low academic jobs... And we keep letting illegal workers depress those wages even more...
Well that and this.
"The poor get poorer because there are ever more of low academic folks chasing fewer low academic jobs."
Um, nope. 7 of the 10 occupations projected to grow the most by 2026 by the Department of Labor have 2017 median salaries of under $35,000. Most of those merely require a HS degree (some less), some need some vocational training on top of it.
BLS: Occupations With Most Job Growth
Sean,
I am not sure where to go with this...
There certainly are some sectors that are growing for the low end employees, however I assume many of these require at least a HS degree if not some vo-tech work.
And this list does not show how many jobs are being lost to automation, off shoring, etc.
So I guess I am not convinced that I am incorrect.
If you do not believe in the supply and demand theory, why do you think low end wages are not growing?
"I am not sure where to go with this... "
I realize it's hard when your talking points run smack into a brick wall of facts.
"And this list does not show how many jobs are being lost to automation, off shoring, etc."
BLS makes projections based on industry trends and projections (it's int methodology). Historically, they've had a pretty good track record -- usually off by less than 5% in the 10-year window.
"If you do not believe in the supply and demand theory, why do you think low end wages are not growing?"
There are lots of non-supply and demand reasons, like:
* less unionization
* a minimum wage that has failed to keep up with inflation for decades
* monopsony, or increased industry concentration, which drives down worker leverage
There are a lot more than just those three, but you get the idea.
That "brick wall" feels more like a marshmallow... Here is an interesting piece.
I do not doubt that their projections are accurate for these "gainers", unfortunately your source does not list the "losers". So we have no idea if their is a net gain or loss.
Please remember that the American Consumers have voted with their wallet. They do not want to pay more for American goods and services. So forcing higher wages via union strikes and government mandates is somewhat pointless.
Please remember that small businesses still employ a large portion of us Americans, and they often pay less.
Large American corporations often pay well and have good benefits.
Monopsony
Really?
You do understand that unemployment is at near all time lows and that almost any skilled or learned employee can market their services elsewhere at anytime and likely get a raise.
Of course the problem is that the people we are discussing have few skills and/or knowledge. Therefore they are more like commodities and truly follow the supply demand curve...
BLS Employment Predictions
The huge growth in the need for Home Health and Personal Care Aides to help care for those Baby Boomers is incredible. Of course there are the challenges of:
- how "qualified" / educated do they need to be to care for Grandma / Grandpa?
- since many Americans did not save adequately for retirement, who is going to pay them and how much?
Oh and I found the Fastest Declining List
Some of them paid better.
So are the illegal workers harming folks like these?
Or are they just unwilling to move, improve their capabilities, etc?
This is an interesting and complicated topic.
Let's bear in mind that being here illegally, unlike double parking, is not a crime. Whether the work they do is harming or helping anyone depends on the nature of the work. That's true for work done by people here legally as well.
--Hiram
Hiram,
You keep using that terrible and incorrect example.
When will you learn, both are apparently Civil Infractions.
"Oh and I found the Fastest Declining List"
The scale of the declines is less than the scale of the increases.
BLS: Largest Job Declines
"Really?"
Yes, really. There's an increasing body of research that points to this as one of many significant factors.
Roosevelt Institute: How Widespread is Labor Monopsony? New Results Suggest It's Pervasive]
VOX: More and more companies have monopoly power over workers’ wages. That’s killing the economy.
"So are the illegal workers harming folks like these?"
The article shows that the far larger obstacles for folks like these are the decades of institutional racism that held their communities down (and still do). Building a wall isn't a fix for those issues.
Please remember that the old people care jobs are a bubble that will come and go. Not sure what those folks will do when the Baby Boomers die off.
Other than that things seemed bleak for low end workers. And we are not even dealing with non-High School Grads, since the care givers will likely need some post high school training. Agree or disagree?
Regarding Monopsony... Yes companies in rural areas have some ability to control wages... And people are free to move...
"The most concentrated labor markets, and the ones where the effect of concentration on wages is largest, are the rural ones. Hence, market definition in antitrust must account for the greater necessity that workers find work quickly, because they cannot afford to remain unemployed for long, and also that their practical geographic scope for finding a job is a good deal smaller than for the typical consumer good."
Now back to the "racism" excuse... People can pick up their household and walk across Mexico to get a job in the USA...
And these idiots in Kansas City can not find a job? Really?
By the way, yes preventing and removing illegal "minority" workers should help these folks...
That is if they actually want to work.
"Other than that things seemed bleak for low end workers. And we are not even dealing with non-High School Grads, since the care givers will likely need some post high school training. Agree or disagree?"
HS diploma not required to be a PCA in Minnesota. The state provides free online training and a free certification test, which is only required if you want to be paid via a government health care program.
"And people are free to move... "
It's pretty hard to uproot your family for an uncertain, non-union job. Especially now that moving expenses are no longer deductible (thanks GOP!).
More Info on PCA
Let me repeat...
" People can pick up their household and walk across Mexico to get a job in the USA..."
And our poor struggling folks can not move 10 miles... Really?
"And our poor struggling folks can not move 10 miles... Really?"
If you don't have a car or aren't in the best of health or don't have friends/relatives who can lend a hand, yeah, it's a real challenge. Especially when you have to typically put 2 months rent down in advance and won't have your deposit back on your old place.
And you think the 14,000 migrants crossing our border monthly have it easier?
What about the concept that our poor are pretty well cared for and just do not have a good enough motivator to:
- embrace change
- relocate
- take risks
- learn and improve
They are just fine staying in their poor neighborhoods complaining about how they are victims?
And that they need more hand outs?
Oh oh… Time for the Pelosi Video again
If you're poor, spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to uproot your family to work at some cruddy job with no job security is a fool's bargain. It's a lot different decision when you have something to lose compared to when you have nothing to lose.
If we want people to move and relocate, by God, let's make it easier for them to do so! (But, of course, that's not what Republicans are actually interested in. You'd rather just shit on them and call them names.)
Easier to do so...
They likely do not own a house or many possessions...
Crime rate is likely high where they live...
And unemployment is high in their current locale...
How much easier do you want to make it for them?
They pretty much have nothing to lose and everything to gain...
However I do understand that leaving one's comfort zone is sometimes hard. Even if it bad... It is still home.
It's astonishing the number of assumptions you can make about people you don't know and don't care to help.
Moose
What do you think keeps them trapped in their 3 mile diameter neighborhood if not familiarity?
It doesn't matter what I think.
Why don't you ask them and find out?
Moose
Well, fortunately, we have economists who study stuff like this. Here's what they say:
High costs of housing
High costs of housing, excessive occupational licensing, policies that have encouraged homw ownership
Increasing similarities in labor markets, greater understanding of what places are like before moving, aging workforces, loss of social trust
I'll read those later... However if things are so stacked against moving...
Why again are so many people risking their lives and those of their children to get a job in the USA?
And yet folks from central KC can not?
Already answered.
Not very well...
I am not sure what gives some people the ambition and energy to strive for more and better... Where as some prefer to settle...
And we know it is not just race, poverty, etc...
Because there are enough of these folks in all areas of society...
"Not very well..."
You just don't like that I don't accept your frame of the issue. Well, tough bounce.
I think on that we are agreed... :-)
There are supposedly 11 million illegals working in this country. We have 6 million Americans unemployed. "Kicking them all out" is not an answer, but maybe not adding to the problem is.
Also, thanks to Sean we recognize the word "Monopsony." Perhaps the high cost of health insurance can be charged to Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare?
I don't think there is a shortage of bad jobs.
--Hiram
Really, so now the BLS is a liar? They were "da bomb" when Obama was making all those great strides against unemployment. Make up your mind.
It's almost as if there are deep issues that prevent minority and low-income people (even ones who do all the right things!) from succeeding.
* More former Boston High School valedictorians became homeless than doctors
* 40% earn less than 50% a year
* 20% never earned a four-year college degree
* Over 80% of these valedictorians are non-white
Boston Globe: The Valedictorians Project
Unfortunately a HS degree doesn't always convey what you think it should. Many of these kids struggle in college, and require remedial Ed classes (1/3?) before they start.
Post a Comment