[mikeryan]

Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business.

I think this might generally be correct however he seems to be more vehemently "Pro American Worker" and so far when that collides with his "Pro Business" stance the worker is currently winning. Attempting to get businesses to repatriate jobs is not necessarily a "pro-business" stance.

[crisnoble]

What decisions has he made that are pro worker? I have heard that he has pushed to restart pipeline construction (pro business), freeze fedral hiring (anti worker), and kill ACA (anti worker, pro business).

[crusso]

The pipeline will create jobs and decrease fuel costs (pro business and worker). Freezing federal hiring will decrease the tax and regulatory load shouldered by everyone (pro business and worker). The ACA was shown to have been sold to the workers based upon lies regarding costs and access to their doctors. It's imploding under its own weight.

Further, if the ACA benefits anyone, it benefits people who don't work but receive subsidies. So getting rid of it is a decided plus for workers.

[crisnoble]

Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs, so is in no way pro worker. Employees of the government are workers too. The ACA benefits my wife who was able to quit her job to start a business without worrying about being denied healthcare for her pre-existing condition. The ACA benefits all workers in businesses who now are required to offer healthcare plans which meet a minimum standard. Workers will not benefit once businesses can go back to deciding that offering a group health insurance plan is an optional benefit.

[jakeogh]

"Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs"

Jobs in government, not in private industry. Would you rather we all go on the gov payroll?

[breatheoften]

Since we are speaking in ridiculous hyperbole -- if everyone worked for private industry and no one had the option to work for the government -- what do you expect would be the effect on the distribution of wage and labor benefits?

[nrjdhsbsid]

None? What does government jobs have to do with equality? Well over half of US works for private companies already, the impact of no government jobs would be minimal if you ignore the obvious problem that we wouldn't have a government.

Arguably companies would come in to replace the government. Private security, private trash pickup, private road maintenance. It would work, but I'm not sure how well

[crisnoble]

All I was trying to say that the current round of executive actions are being taken for businesses and without regards to effects on workers, but you put it more succinctly.

[jakeogh]

Businesses would like to make their goods as cheap as possible (by using cheap labor outside the US). What he has proposed (tariffs) forces them to build here, hence the jobs are here.

[nrjdhsbsid]

Federal jobs are a net negative for the economy. Private jobs are funded by profit from selling products. Federal jobs are funded by taking money from everyone to pay for them. Freezing federal hiring should have no short term effect on the economy, long term it will mean less government services but lower taxes.

I heavily support the pre-existing condition clause in the ACA but the rest of it is a clusterfuck. The way it's designed inscentivizes only the riskiest people to join groups and everyone else to go without insurance.

The ACA's "profit model" is also greatly skewed towards overcharging the young and healthy. Our oldest generation is the most wealthy population group and our youngest are reletively one of the poorest in US history... As a young healthy male my insurance cost has gone from $55 to over $300 a month due to the ACA. I recently just ditched insurance because that's too much money to pay for a service I get hardly any benefit from.

It's yet another money siphon built by the boomers to fuck over the mellenials.

[crusso]

Government jobs are paid for through taxation. Taxation is a form of theft and at best should be considered a necessary evil for running the government that everyone agreed to - as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution never allowed for the massive Federal work force we have. It's a bit of a leviathan that needs to be reduced.

Sure, the ACA has some short-term, especially anecdotal benefits. I'm glad your wife was able to use it productively while it was available to her... but the ACA is loaded up with give-aways paid for with other people's money - so it's unsurprising that there are some who think it's a good deal for them.

If I give you my neighbor's big-screen TV, I'm sure you'd have a great story about getting a big-screen TV. But you aren't the only party in that transaction.

Long term, the system set up by the ACA is collapsing. Insurers are fleeing from the markets because they don't make economic sense without ever increasing government subsidies to the industry.

Worse, the big promise of the ACA was that it would lower costs for everyone without changing their doctor-patient relationships. Those were lies. Not just mistakes, but pre-meditated and documented lies.

[nrjdhsbsid]

The ACA just piled onto the clusterfuck we already have. At a federal level we've already got Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and now the ACA. Within medicare we have "parts" A through D that offer a bunch of intermingled benefits. Even when someone has medicare it's a huge fucking pain in the ass to figure out which "part" to bill and if you send it to the wrong one they won't pay.

Many states have their own programs as well.

It's a gaint fucking mess they need to cut the shit and just throw everyone on Medicaid

[shagmin]

I believe ACA mainly benefits people who work but don't make enough to pay for healthcare insurance. Medicaid would be for those who don't work at all (or make way too little).

I think looking at it as a zero sum thing is framing it the wrong way anyway though.

[crisnoble]

I agree that the pipeline will decrease fuel costs, and provide temporary construction jobs, however the net will be that the oil businesses will increase their profits and need fewer workers to transport the oil to market. Until workers can share equally in the profits of a business, I think it is dishonest to equate removing regulatory "burden" as pro business. Trickle down economics effects simply do not happen.

[crusso]

"Until workers can share equally in the profits of a business"

Sharing equally in the productivity of the society is just communism. It fails every time because people have varying levels of productivity but when you compensate everyone equally no matter what effort they apply, you get a tragedy of the commons situation.

Communism has been tried many times and has never been shown to be good for workers.

[rconti]

All of the pro-manufacturing-in-the-US, anti-import stuff.

[crisnoble]

I have yet to hear about any movement on those campaign talking points.

[rconti]

Do threats not count as movement? What about threats that inspire (alleged) action? There has been quite a bit of both.

Does it have to be an executive action?

Traditionally, the President wasn't the one creating the laws to begin with. So if Congress passes a law and Trump signs it, is it his action then?

[PacketPaul]

He had a big meeting with manufacturers two days ago and is incentivising US manufacturing through the threat of tariffs.

[harryjo]

He's promoting _jobs_, but also promoting pollution and cuts to healthcare, wages, and job safety.