Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I mean yes in this bizzare world of unlimited wealth and resources this could work.

    We however dont live in a perfect world see Venezuela for how that goes down.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I mean it clearly is the case I set my own wage and argue for it. If my employer doesn't want to pay it I simply go work for one that will. This is how every employment situation works. You decide your worth not the company.
    I can't help but to not note on the funny irony here, that you first proclaim a bizarre world of unlimited wealth; but then go on to act as if there is this bizarre world of unlimited companies that you can go to and ask for whatever salary you deem worthy. That's not how the relationship between employers and employees work, which even you acknowledge previously, by the notion that there is a limited worth on labour, one post prior.
    Last edited by Howel; 2020-11-23 at 04:19 PM.
    Formerly Howeller, lost my account.

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Yes making everyone poor and starving lowers wealth inequality but I wouldn't push for it.
    I am just curious as to why all of the arguments come down to "making everyone poor"? I thought that US had an excellent example when it actually was the other way around. I mean during 60s and 70s, if I remember correctly, your average CEO to base employee wage difference was about x50. And the country was not only the most prosperous of all, but had incredible economic and social development dynamics. There was even a saying that a working man could take care of his family, have a house and a car. To think that right now someone working in a retail store could earn enough to completely support a family of 4 people, have enough to have his own house and with change to spare, that is a kind of a stretch.
    Right now the CEO to basic labor difference is what? x500? More? It was x 500 more than a decade ago, so I guess it is much larger now. This wage gap is not something a society needs.
    Interesting to see that the golden age of US history, along with progressive taxation (which was close to 80% on $10 000 000+ earnings), are demonized now, calling everyone who advocates for closing wage gaps and inequalities a "commie" or some such. Before long, all of us will be living in a pure Darwinist society with that approach. Problem is, there should always be victims to eat in a Darwinist society. Once the breaks are loose, the stone will keep on rolling faster and faster, until another victim slows it down with his body. Then the cycle of acceleration continues. Just a simple example from recent history - Martin Shkreli. After raising prices on a couple of his newly acquired drugs 5-20 times, people started to die from lack of treatment. Yet no one really cared. Next step for him - increase prices by 56 times on a vital, life or death type drug. Basically overnight from $13 something to $750. Only then people started to act. The main problem in this scenario is that the reaction was only due to such a rapid and visible change. Had he done that more gradually, it might have been seen as normal. After all, we do see it as normal that the gap grew more than 10 times over just 50 years or so.

  3. #183
    Merely a Setback JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    26,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Yes prices would go down but your failing to understand the key dynamic here. It is laborer who sets the worth of their labor not the company. You reversed the relationship.

    Wages haven't increased because the value of unskilled labor hasn't increased in value.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Can you point me to a successful anarcho communist society of more then 10,000 people with comparable living conditions?

    Yes making everyone poor and starving lowers wealth inequality but I wouldn't push for it.
    The human race always has room for advancement, a shame you can't see that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    it’s mostly a syndicalist fantasy that “the workers” are going to rise up, which is disconnected from the fact that “the workers” are your racist uncle and jerk co-workers who you don’t like.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    The election has passed and 58 million working class Americans stood up and proved that they are in fact your racist uncle and jerk co-workers.
    They really can't help but show disdain for the working class.

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I mean it clearly is the case I set my own wage and argue for it. If my employer doesn't want to pay it I simply go work for one that will. This is how every employment situation works. You decide your worth not the company.
    I mean at this point we're just pulling from the list of generic Reaganomics arguments, you're not even bothering to sand off the serial numbers anymore.
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    Dude what?

    The only reason shit jobs are paid shit is because many people have no choice but to take them. Employers are in a position of power that does not allow laborers to set their worth.

    Let's assume for a minute (and please don't immediately block with the usual "who's gonna pay for it" nonsense), assume for a minute Universal Basic Income exists. UBI meaning basic needs like shelter and food covered.

    Now imagine if everyone could look at a shit job and be able to decline doing it. I guarantee you that wages will raise to a point where people will again do these jobs, because they want a bit more than their basic needs covered.
    and why do they have "no choice but to take them"

    is it maybe because they have 0 skills and are not wanted anywhere ?

    its as simple as - "Any skilled worker can do any jobs that doesnt require skills - but people who dont have any skill simply cannot do jobs that require having them "

    i can for example go and dig a ditch with a showel anytime i would want to - but person who only knows how to dig a ditch with a showel cannot do my job because it would end in disaster for company

    lesson is - learn skills that are valued by society

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    I mean at this point we're just pulling from the list of generic Reaganomics arguments, you're not even bothering to sand off the serial numbers anymore.
    he is not wrong though

    and the reason he can have this view on world is most likely because he learned/practice hard to be where he is now. instead being lazy like people who cant land a decent job.

    ddo you remember how back in 50-60s jobs in fast food restaurants were done mostly by high schoolers / college kids ?

    now you have 40-60 year olds doing them - imagine working for 40 years and not learning even 1 valued by society skill to have to work there. depressing

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    he is not wrong though

    and the reason he can have this view on world is most likely because he learned/practice hard to be where he is now. instead being lazy like people who cant land a decent job.
    He is literally wrong though.
    At my old firm, I know for a fact every single person was on one of three different (one for support staff, one for the junior associates, one for the SAs) salary packages (modified by legislative loading), there was no negotiation. My wife's remuneration is based on an academic collective bargaining agreement which was negotiated before she even worked there. All teachers/soldiers/social servants in Australia have a similar system or predetermined remuneration based on tiers of experience, etc.

    I don't know what 1940s neoliberal LARP land you live in where remuneration is decided by sliding paper back and forth over brandy and cigars but here in 2021 salary negotiation is essentially a dead meme.
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    statements like this show that you have never in your life worked in any type of leadership position .

    its kinda sad when people who have no clue what they are talking about spread bs views.

    you have also logical flaw in your reasoning - if everyone can be a boss - then technically people who "do thoe basic dirty work " can be their own bosses too - its so easy according to you - yet they choose not to for some strange reason .
    And your statement shows nothing about which I talked. Congratulations.
    How the hell did you understand that I said "everyone can be a boss"? I very clearly said that not everyone can, be cause someone has to do the basic work. It literally is that - everyone cannot be managers or company owners. It is just impossible.
    Get a grip, please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    The human race always has room for advancement, a shame you can't see that.
    I do I am simply wary of putting all my eggs in one basket. We have a bad track record with ideologies that attempted to end poverty I would argue there isn't really an example where it ended well

    At the end of the day a society where you earn what your worth has a far,far higher standard of living then a society that tries to force equality of outcomes for its citizens.

    I can agree to opening up education for those with potential to learn a useful skill but there would need to be some kind of test for aptitude as well.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    and why do they have "no choice but to take them"

    is it maybe because they have 0 skills and are not wanted anywhere ?

    its as simple as - "Any skilled worker can do any jobs that doesnt require skills - but people who dont have any skill simply cannot do jobs that require having them "

    i can for example go and dig a ditch with a showel anytime i would want to - but person who only knows how to dig a ditch with a showel cannot do my job because it would end in disaster for company

    lesson is - learn skills that are valued by society

    - - - Updated - - -



    he is not wrong though

    and the reason he can have this view on world is most likely because he learned/practice hard to be where he is now. instead being lazy like people who cant land a decent job.

    ddo you remember how back in 50-60s jobs in fast food restaurants were done mostly by high schoolers / college kids ?

    now you have 40-60 year olds doing them - imagine working for 40 years and not learning even 1 valued by society skill to have to work there. depressing
    I feel this is a rather unfair outlook. There are people who simply lack the ability to master a skill. I've seen rather devastating outcomes for people who clearly tried much harder to succeed then I did but simply lacked the aptitude to master what came easily to me.

    Society must be cold to a certain extent but anyone willing to work deserves at the very least respect. Not all of them are lazy.

    While I believe simply handing them a higher wage would be folly I am a firm believer in providing them a basic level of shelter and necessities supplied by the government allowing them to use their meager wages as they see fit.

  9. #189
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I think most of this stems from people being intellectually dishonest with themselves.

    You will always have a bottom rung of society and no amount of legislation will correct that.
    Everyone knows this.

    We just think that "bottom rung" should be above the level of human suffering and hardship. It's really not that fucking complicated.

    If you raise wages rent and necessities will raise at a near equal pace as the availability of resources remain unchanged.
    Not only is this not true in practice, it's mathematically impossible for it to be true, unless you introduce some additional factor, like profiteering by greedy capitalists. In which case, it isn't the wage raise that's the contributing factor, obviously; it's that additional factor.

    Literally not mathematically possible for prices to rise at an equal pace with wages. Stop presenting fantastical impossibilities as if they're anywhere close to reality.

    People always talk about taxing the rich as though it was some bizzare magical bullet while always excluding themselves from any negatives such a drastic change would have.
    There aren't any real negatives.

    "Oh no, they might move their accounts to the Caymans". They've already done that. You can tax profits made within a country's marketplace, and tax them again when they move those funds outside the country. The Waltons can't just move to the Caymans and suddenly pay zero taxes on Wal-Mart's revenues.

    It just comes off as naive and hallow to me. A worker sells his labor he alone decides what he will charge for it not a corporation.
    This is just a lie.

    Take a look at basically any entry-level job offer. You'll see that it has a wage offer attached. That's the wage you're offered by the corporation. They decided what to pay you. You didn't come up with that figure. And you can't even negotiate, because they've got 30 other candidates who'll take that offer as-is.

    And why would they? Because the alternative is suffering. Risking homelessness and food insecurity and lack of health coverage and so forth. In any other circumstance, we'd call those factors "duress", and any decision made under such duress can't be considered to have been made with your proper free consent. Employment is one of the only cases where we still allow and encourage such duress to be exploited, for the benefit of the already-wealthy.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Everyone knows this.

    We just think that "bottom rung" should be above the level of human suffering and hardship. It's really not that fucking complicated.



    Not only is this not true in practice, it's mathematically impossible for it to be true, unless you introduce some additional factor, like profiteering by greedy capitalists. In which case, it isn't the wage raise that's the contributing factor, obviously; it's that additional factor.

    Literally not mathematically possible for prices to rise at an equal pace with wages. Stop presenting fantastical impossibilities as if they're anywhere close to reality.



    There aren't any real negatives.

    "Oh no, they might move their accounts to the Caymans". They've already done that. You can tax profits made within a country's marketplace, and tax them again when they move those funds outside the country. The Waltons can't just move to the Caymans and suddenly pay zero taxes on Wal-Mart's revenues.



    This is just a lie.

    Take a look at basically any entry-level job offer. You'll see that it has a wage offer attached. That's the wage you're offered by the corporation. They decided what to pay you. You didn't come up with that figure. And you can't even negotiate, because they've got 30 other candidates who'll take that offer as-is.

    And why would they? Because the alternative is suffering. Risking homelessness and food insecurity and lack of health coverage and so forth. In any other circumstance, we'd call those factors "duress", and any decision made under such duress can't be considered to have been made with your proper free consent. Employment is one of the only cases where we still allow and encourage such duress to be exploited, for the benefit of the already-wealthy.
    Few things here. I don't like the bullet point form myself so will address the nature of your counter points. Not everything would raise in price mostly rent and housing as the demand would far outstrip the supply. In time everything else would go up but those would be the first and most drastic.

    All laborers sell their wages. They are under no obligation to accept or even answer a employment offer. Nor can they blame the companies for going with whoever sells their labor the cheapest. With globalization this includes the entire world's labor pool though local do have the advantage of not requiring shipping costs.

    As for taxing the rich there are a lot of subtleties to that argument that is a topic all onto itself. Depends on degrees. I don't believe the rich would stand to support the entire working poor class.

  11. #191
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Few things here. I don't like the bullet point form myself so will address the nature of your counter points. Not everything would raise in price mostly rent and housing as the demand would far outstrip the supply. In time everything else would go up but those would be the first and most drastic.
    There is no such evidence. At best, it's a fairly minimal increase, and certainly isn't on par with the wage increase. The increase likely stems more from people upscaling their living conditions than anything else.

    https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/94238.html

    And no; it's literally not mathematically possible for an increase in wages to lead to an equal increase in prices. Literally not possible. It's like trying to argue that you can lift yourself off the ground if you pull on your shoelaces hard enough.

    You're pushing fantasies that are not rooted in reality.

    All laborers sell their wages. They are under no obligation to accept or even answer a employment offer. Nor can they blame the companies for going with whoever sells their labor the cheapest. With globalization this includes the entire world's labor pool though local do have the advantage of not requiring shipping costs.
    Ignoring what I said doesn't constitute an argument.

    Not taking a job when you're already poor means you suffer hardship.
    Hardship is duress.
    Thus, any time you take a job to avoid suffering that hardship, you make that choice under duress. It is not a free and open choice.

    The labor market is not a free market, and all the power in that market lies with employers. Unless we institute a basic income system, where "not working by choice" becomes a valid hardship-free option, that will remain the case.

    As for taxing the rich there are a lot of subtleties to that argument that is a topic all onto itself. Depends on degrees. I don't believe the rich would stand to support the entire working poor class.
    And? They'll whine. And then they'll pay the taxes, and suck it up. They really don't have any other options, other than shutting down their company completely, and that just frees up the capital and the marketplace for someone else to take over.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    It looks like a family of four is eligible for SNAP in my state up to ~$52K. For a single individual, it's ~$25K.

    In everyone's ideal society, what percentage of people that work 35-40 hours/week should make more than that? Likewise, what's the right percentage of people that work ~35-40 hours per week, but don't work year round?
    I use to be a SNAP worker last year, and the income limit for a household size of 1 was something like 1340 gross. A household size of 4 was something like $2700 gross income. Granted I worked in a midwest state.

    I just looked up the guidelines now, which I think is nationwide.
    https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility

    It's only like $50 more now then it was last year. So I don't know where $52,000 is the income limit for a household size of 4 is.

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There is no such evidence. At best, it's a fairly minimal increase, and certainly isn't on par with the wage increase. The increase likely stems more from people upscaling their living conditions than anything else.

    https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/94238.html

    And no; it's literally not mathematically possible for an increase in wages to lead to an equal increase in prices. Literally not possible. It's like trying to argue that you can lift yourself off the ground if you pull on your shoelaces hard enough.

    You're pushing fantasies that are not rooted in reality.



    Ignoring what I said doesn't constitute an argument.

    Not taking a job when you're already poor means you suffer hardship.
    Hardship is duress.
    Thus, any time you take a job to avoid suffering that hardship, you make that choice under duress. It is not a free and open choice.

    The labor market is not a free market, and all the power in that market lies with employers. Unless we institute a basic income system, where "not working by choice" becomes a valid hardship-free option, that will remain the case.



    And? They'll whine. And then they'll pay the taxes, and suck it up. They really don't have any other options, other than shutting down their company completely, and that just frees up the capital and the marketplace for someone else to take over.
    I think we fundamentally disagree on the nature of man. While I admit your proposition is far more enticing I can't actually see it playing out in the real world well much like communism. It relies on a positive and selfless human nature I don't think is as common as you believe it to be.

    I look at the actual examples of experiments with living wages and in most cases landlords end up eating up the extra wage.

  14. #194
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I think we fundamentally disagree on the nature of man.
    That's a semantically meaningless phrase.

    I'm sticking to observable facts, and you're getting annoyed that I won't give your counterfactual flights of fancy and delirium equal consideration.

    Because of course I won't; your claims are nonsense and don't hold up to scrutiny. You're not describing reality.

    While I admit your proposition is far more enticing I can't actually see it playing out in the real world well much like communism. It relies on a positive and selfless human nature I don't think is as common as you believe it to be.
    Literally nothing I said proposed any such view of human nature. What I'm describing is observable fact, in how human populations have actually reacted to changes.

    Oh, and basic grade-school mathematics, which your claims also violate.

    I look at the actual examples of experiments with living wages and in most cases landlords end up eating up the extra wage.
    You have cited fuck-all evidence, dude. Don't claim that you're basing it on some such evidence, when you've provided none.

    At best, you're arguing that landlords might just decide to increase rents because they're exploitative bastards. And then trying to blame that rent increase on the wage increases, not the greed of landlords. Which is a lie.

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That's a semantically meaningless phrase.

    I'm sticking to observable facts, and you're getting annoyed that I won't give your counterfactual flights of fancy and delirium equal consideration.

    Because of course I won't; your claims are nonsense and don't hold up to scrutiny. You're not describing reality.



    Literally nothing I said proposed any such view of human nature. What I'm describing is observable fact, in how human populations have actually reacted to changes.

    Oh, and basic grade-school mathematics, which your claims also violate.



    You have cited fuck-all evidence, dude. Don't claim that you're basing it on some such evidence, when you've provided none.
    What observable facts? We are discussing theoretical economics...

    You believe things will work one way I believe they will work another your not observing a damn thing.

  16. #196
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    What observable facts? We are discussing theoretical economics...
    We really aren't. We're discussing how wage increases (don't) lead to proportional price increases in the marketplace. Actual, practical changes. Not hypotheticals.

    I even cited a study of actual data.

    You're right about one thing; I'm not going to entertain your imaginary fantasies, not when we've got actual data and real-world facts we can work from.

  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    What observable facts? We are discussing theoretical economics...

    You believe things will work one way I believe they will work another your not observing a damn thing.
    Theoretical economics is about observable factors, that are attributed weight and impact on the economy. It is not about belief and just self made up logic, which is why you'd be hard pressed to find any actual economist that'd agree with your assertion that there is a direct correlation between wage increases and consumer goods and rental pricing.
    Formerly Howeller, lost my account.

  18. #198
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    37,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Howel View Post
    Theoretical economics is about observable factors, that are attributed weight and impact on the economy. It is not about belief and just self made up logic, which is why you'd be hard pressed to find any actual economist that'd agree with your assertion that there is a direct correlation between wage increases and consumer goods and rental pricing.
    It’s pretty easy to dismiss them.

    “Wage increases will lead to people not being able to afford to live! They won’t be able to afford food or shelter”

    “That’s the problem now... they’re living that right now”

    “Yeah but if we give them more money they’ll be even worse off!”

    Most fucking obtuse reasoning
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black people in america should be happy their ancestors where slaves so they could have a good live.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black women are racist. Im the one trying to make her[my wife] behave like white people and not say it out loud.
    Totally not racist

  19. #199
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    55,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    What observable facts? We are discussing theoretical economics...

    You believe things will work one way I believe they will work another your not observing a damn thing.
    Data and imagination, are not equally theoretical... the welfare queen and 70% of people on food stamps having jobs, are incongruent for that very reason. I think all those people driving Cadillacs in mink coats, are in the imagination of those that have been convinced by corporate goons, that the working class is simply lazy bums. Just not you... you are the best... write in Trump in GA special elections to own the libs... public option and 15$ minimum wage will just cut into your vicariously achieved billions.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    a) he is factually corret - you are factually incorrect.

    any person going to work is effectively selling his most viable resource - time - as an eployee you are effectively selling for examply 40 hours a week for X amount of money of your employers

    if you dont have any skills - you time is valued very low and therefore you are paid as low as possible

    now if you had skills you could go tell anyone interviewing you "well go f.... yourself im gonna sell my time to someone else" - but because a lot of people dont have any skills they accept any terms that are given to them . they are effectively admiting how low value their time has.

    b) i wonder what argument you have against what i written besides insult ? as we have extreme epidemy of obesity caused by people consuming to much calories daily in whole western/northern hemisphere - and US is one of proud leaders in this department.

    one of easiest ways to fight it would be to make unhealthy food much more expensive - lets say put in extremly aggresive -100- 200 % tax on snacks , soda drinks etc

    this would ensure that people who still want to devour them would do so but people would think 5 times before buying unhealthy food.

    c) here another flaw showing your lack of knowledge regarding management - more and more companies go away from strickly hierarchical/pyramid structure to more horizontal ones - ofc there are people at the top there always have to be - but whole structures are much more flattened nowadays .

    i also find it ironical that you are effectively denying your own words - saying that society needs hierachy to function properly - yet you claimed that anyone can be at the top managing it.
    This argument falls flat when you recognize that workers don't set a price for their labor, employers set a budget.

    I have skills in IT infrastructure. I've found they are worth ~$20-30/hour in my area. If I want to buy a nicer house, so I need higher wages, I can go ask a prospective employer to give me $35/hour for my time, and they can tell me to go kick rocks and hire the next guy who will take the $20/hour.

    If I have a job already, and I believe I am undervalued, I can go into work and demand a raise or refuse to work, and my employer can fire me in the spot leaving me with nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •