So lefties, what rightist thing to you support?

[chequita guevara]

Commies support big business over small business for two reasons. Increased efficiencies and the concentration of labor. Supporting small business is a fetish among many petit bourgeois lefties. But commies like Kid (I hope) would support labor over big or small business.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Commies support big business over small business for two reasons. Increased efficiencies and the concentration of labor. Supporting small business is a fetish among many petit bourgeois lefties.

Economies of scales can benefit larger enterprises, but increased efficiencies don't necessarily scale upwards with size. Software development is one example where small companies can be more efficient, where in some cases increasing size tends to increase overheads disproportionally to increases of productivity.

Put simply, if you have one programmer than adding one more is unlikely to double your output.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I am not a leftist, I just like statism, what does that make me?

A Communitarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Supporting small business is a fetish among many petit bourgeois lefties.

[chequita guevara]

If the shoe fits . . .

[Kuciwalker]

Che is exactly right, in both posts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Economies of scales can benefit larger enterprises, but increased efficiencies don't necessarily scale upwards with size. Software development is one example where small companies can be more efficient, where in some cases increasing size tends to increase overheads disproportionally to increases of productivity.

In either tranditional manufacturing or "Third Wave" economics, you can increase economy of scale up to a point.

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Put simply, if you have one programmer than adding one more is unlikely to double your output.

It depends on how it's set up. You could set up an agile team, for example. Or you could have the two programmers working on separate modules. There are all kinds of trade-offs involved.

[Berzerker]

My line of thought (if you can call it that ) is this.

Hypothetical:
With minimum wages at $6/hour, employers cannot produce a product or service at a price customers will pay. So they hire illegals at a lesser price (knowing they won't and can't complain).

However, if the minimum wage were--say--$5/hr, employers could hire Americans, could still produce an affordable product or service and could be in compliance with the law.

If my labor isn't worth $6 an hour, somebody will lose money hiring me. Many liberals deny the minimum wage destroys jobs, but its just common sense. The damned Sierra Club out in California lobbied for an increase in the state minimum wage and then asked for an exemption because they couldn't afford to pay their people the increase...they'd actually have to fire people...

I don't think the minimum wage applies for migrant farmhands and for people who work in many jobs in the restaurant industry. So many jobs held by illegals were never covered by the minimum wage.

Yup, and when I delivered newspapers as a kid, they didn't pay me the minimum. Funny, these crusaders for minimum wage and child labor laws were paying us chump change. But if all these people were getting the minimum, the cost of living would increase while people lose lower skilled jobs. You're fired, and that burger you had for lunch now costs a buck more.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It depends on how it's set up. You could set up an agile team, for example. Or you could have the two programmers working on separate modules. There are all kinds of trade-offs involved.

When one person develops something for years, they know it inside out. Adding one person will not add equivalent output however 'agile' or 'modular' the team. It usually slows things down at first, in fact, as the newcomer drains the time of the original person getting things explained to them. A team of programmers needs managing and administering which creates overheads.

Saying that efficiency can scale with the right 'agility & modularity' may apply in certain special cases, but in the general case, it's just management speak of the type used by people like Dilbert's boss.

[Cort Haus]

Another angle is that a small organisation can get away with not doing things 'properly', in terms of documentation, admin, management etc. If it grows beyond a certain point, it can't get away with that 'wildness' any more and has to do things by the book, which is more expensive.

So, in terms of pure efficiency, bigger is not always better, as I'm sure Uncle Karl himself would recognise if he were to experience contemporary forces of production.

[Provost Harrison]

I've always had complete ambivalence regarding firearms restrictions, and a Che is probably thinking, in a revolutionary situation, firearms could come in handy for defending the population, and from that perspective, the original aim of 'the right to bear arms' of the US Founding Fathers makes sense. However the problems they cause, in consideration of their ineffectiveness against an organised military weigh against them.

And the death penalty (very controversial from me). In theory, if someone could be proven guilty and impossible to reform, I have no objection. In reality, there is no such thing as certainly over guilt...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: So lefties, what rightist thing to you support?

Originally posted by Lancer
I'm now an independant, but I support tort reform.

I'm trying to see which lefties are open minded enough to support a right wing cause, any cause, and which are mere robots.

"Tort reform" is just a nice package for letting those who commit torts escape liability for their acts. Someone grossly ****s up a routine appendectomy and leaves you paralyzed from the waist down for the next 30-40 years, unless you die sooner? Hey, let's cap pain and suffering awards to say, $400,000, no matter what.

Cali already has one effective form of tort reform - the §998 settlement offer - basically, if one side makes the offer, and the other side rejects it and fails to do better at trial, that side is liable for the costs and attorney's fees of the party making the §998 offer.

All you really need to add to that is increased disciplinary action for attorneys who frequently bring bad lawsuits or refuse to settle marginal or meritless suits, and increased sanctions for attorneys who engage in frivolous litigation tactics.

What you don't need is to punish potential real victims and immunize tortfeasors, which is what the so-called tort reform movement is about.

I've definitely moved to the left courtesy of Bush & Co., but I still support the death penalty and would extend it to sexual predation cases involving young children.

I also oppose unfundend mandates, support state sovereignty and a smaller Federal government more limited in power.

[SpencerH]

Yeah, tort reform is bull****.

[Az]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If the shoe fits . . .

pwned

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, given that I am on the right.

Probably less immigration restrictions and pacifism. Puts me rather far out in lefty land, but oh well.