First of all, I've been arguing basic economics. I know liberals equate that study to witchcraft, but surely you can't call it a hyperbole.
Secondly, calling labor a commodity isn't dehumanizing workers. It's just proper terminology. You're the one who attached that particular connotation on to it. That's got nothing to do with me.
---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 03:37 AM ----------
For the science of economics to work, labor has to be considered a resource. There is no equation for "human worth", or whatever you're trying to convey here.
With an attitude like this this is going places.First of all, I've been arguing basic economics. I know liberals equate that study to witchcraft, but surely you can't call it a hyperbole.
Economics is not a science, get that right. And all of the sudden people make who sense are "liberal" in silly connotations? Whoa, ok, sure.
And yeah, sure, labor is a mere resource with no complexity of variables based on its humanity, sure, it's a mere X in an equation.
Stop trying to sound smart, you are making yourself look dumb.
Adopting Mexico's wages is only going to lower living standards for everyone on the bottom (and force more out of middle). The markets that matter aren't aimed at the lowest incomes in the U.S.
Federal food subsidies are though.
Everything won't just magically deflate. Apple and Toyota don't give a shit what low-end retail and food-service and laborers make.
What a fat load of bullshit.
If work isn't worth the money to sustain life, then the demand isn't high enough for it to exist. Bottom-feeding won't fix jack.
Last edited by Callace; 2012-06-11 at 03:46 AM. Reason: clarity
"People who make sense"? You're the ones denouncing fundamental economic principles because "it dehumanizes people". You can't ignore reality because it makes you feel bad. It's not about "feelings" or "humanity", it's god damn math. Unless you can debase math with math, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
But seriously, study economics. The world is in desperate need of people who make decisions based on fact rather than emotion.
Agreed. We should never, ever abstract what people do to a point where it's treated as something non-human.
I get the argument (this is directed at Kalyyn). Not only is it morally wrong, but it's also wrong in other ways. The work employees do isn't a commodity, it's an investment. Companies are willing to hire workers because they feel the money they pay that person will ultimately lead to more profit, from a variety of things -- from the complex stuff like engineering a microprocessor to simple stuff like keeping the dust off products so consumers are more attracted to buy said product.
Again, nothing about treating labor as a commodity dehumanizes the people who provide the labor. That's an irrelevant concept that you people are attaching to the word "commodity".
And Callace,
These are only just "straight lines" if you don't understand what they mean. Our business regulations should be based on hard mathematics, not just what sounds good.
Yes it absolutely does. The "human element", or whatever you want to call it, complicates everything in every aspect of every industry to a variety of degrees and economics is not exempt (ex: how retardedly knee-jerk the stock market is to seemingly idiotic things). You can only truly treat labor as a commodity if it's done by what society recognizes as human (i.e. slaves, robots).
Last edited by Badpaladin; 2012-06-11 at 04:28 AM. Reason: DERP sans the 'not'
Its not that it dehumanizes them. Its that people have some major fundamental differences from commodities. Like being living human beings. Which is why we don't kill off the elderly or others who might be a drain on society, but excess commodities get destroyed all the time if its too expensive to keep them.
RE: wages, if a commodity doesn't sell high enough no big deal, whatever. But if a person doesn't "sell" (read: wages) high enough to support themselves we don't find it acceptable that they die.
Commodity refers to a thing. Resource is much broader. Commodity refers to things. Things are inanimate. Inanimate entities are not people.
A person is not a thing.
Una persona no es una cosa.
A gente nao es uma coisa. (portunhol ftw).
I don't know how else to put it.
---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 12:30 AM ----------
Do you actually believe in Big Data (and even know what it is) or are you pulling something out of your arse?
Quantify patent regulation for me and please offer a solution. It's all cute lines and graphs in this "science", eh?
Last edited by Callace; 2012-06-11 at 04:42 AM.
It pisses me off that he doesn't understand that graph is fucking meaningless until he plugs in real-life numbers on it.
He doesn't get that abstract principle =/= facts from reality.
I like that he's being enthusiastic about being scientific. But he isn't doing anything with it.
Hey, if "conservatives" want to argue that labor is a commodity, I'd like for them to stop arguing against abortion.
I'd also like them to support a eugenics program to alleviate unusable commodities. I mean, if we throw away oranges that won't sell, we should throw away people that won't work, right?
I like that route. People without work are just rounded up after 4 weeks of unemployment and sent on a boat to 'a magic island of happiness' (the incinerator). And to curb population growth, we fix population growth at .2% per year and every other year we just send the lowest earning section of the population in proportion to live births (less deaths) off to 'a magic island of happiness' (the incinerator) and in the event that deaths exceed births, everyone gets to live that year! Yay!
The best part of my plan is that it incentivizes death! No more useless old relatives! If they don't die, your children might!
Fine. If you want to live in a world where emotions take priority over success and efficiency, then I suppose you're entitled to that opinion. You'll have to forgive me for disagreeing.
---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 04:48 AM ----------
You're confusing fiscal conservatives with social conservatives. Don't. It's insulting. I'm pro-choice and pro-genetic modification.
Don't assume that you know what I stand for, because you're blatantly wrong.