EPTObama 08! - Page 4
| Blogs > {CC}StealthBlue |
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 28 2008 13:09 Jibba wrote: I think the free market instruments you brought up, when they actually work, do so in long term but not short term, and with effective marketing and PR they may not work at all. these days its not very hard to go on digg or w/e or even tl and be like "ROAR MY COMPANY SUCKS AND HERES WHY." you never know, the internet generation is rapidly approaching the prime of power and the upper managers/vps/ceos of said company might be browsing, see the post, and reply or fire the people responsible. Marketing and PR these days is becoming less and less effective. Too many people and too easy/cheap of a medium to change minds. Sure, companies can spend money on those, but its a risk and if the company director chooses to do so, that could salvage their reputation or hasten their failure. Keep in mind that almost always any short-term solution results in a long term problem. And saying that the next generation will fix it is the argument of last generation. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Or look at shoes. Is there any way you can look at a Nike product line and determine the quality of each product? Probably not. Free market requires free information, and that simply will never exist. The internet helps tremendously, but then you're tied down by trying to determine credibility and other things. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 28 2008 13:51 Caller wrote: these days its not very hard to go on digg or w/e or even tl and be like "ROAR MY COMPANY SUCKS AND HERES WHY." you never know, the internet generation is rapidly approaching the prime of power and the upper managers/vps/ceos of said company might be browsing, see the post, and reply or fire the people responsible. anonymity? Marketing and PR these days is becoming less and less effective. Too many people and too easy/cheap of a medium to change minds. Sure, companies can spend money on those, but its a risk and if the company director chooses to do so, that could salvage their reputation or hasten their failure. dumbest thing i've ever heard Keep in mind that almost always any short-term solution results in a long term problem. And saying that the next generation will fix it is the argument of last generation. keep in mind no body wants to get fucked in the short term for long term benefits. recession now? SOCIAL RELIEF PLS, i dont care if my children have to pay more taxes because of it i want monies nowwww. On July 28 2008 13:59 Jibba wrote: How often does an inferior product beat out a more capable one? It still happens. iPod, Bluray, any HP computer that ever gets sold, etc. Or look at shoes. Is there any way you can look at a Nike product line and determine the quality of each product? Probably not. Free market requires free information, and that simply will never exist. The internet helps tremendously, but then you're tied down by trying to determine credibility and other things. When you say product you have to take into account everything that is done to create the product and bring it to the consumer, build quality, packaging, marketing, etc. So what if Apple is good at marketing the iPod? They generate huge revenues because of it, not to mention they have name recognition in addition to being the pioneer of the mp3 player segment. Just saying if you take all factors into account there will always be a reason for why one product will beat out another. That's just business. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 27 2008 22:49 Jibba wrote: Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand. Umm, if we're talking about teachers here the issue is the local / state budget rather than them getting paid less for the same amount of work. In this case, however, you can still make a case that the harder working person would do the proper research, etc. before dedicating themselves to a profession in which they will make an insufficient amount of money to live the lifestyle they seek. If we talk about private schools I'm sure they get paid more and there are higher standards or public and private universities I'm sure they get 100k+ and higher. Granted, it may not be as much as a working professional in the field they may be teaching, but then again they are "just" teaching. It's comparatively easier to teach something you already know on a day to day basis than use and apply them in strenuous real world situations. P.S. That was a really shitty cop out "too young and inexperienced" lolz | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
| ||
|
poilord
Germany3252 Posts
pretty captivating speech though | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 28 2008 16:03 mahnini wrote: In this case, however, you can still make a case that the harder working person would do the proper research, etc. before dedicating themselves to a profession in which they will make an insufficient amount of money to live the lifestyle they seek. No, you really can't. That argument is bogus. Just like it is to call people lazy if they make less money than you. CA obviously grew up in a privileged household and has likely never faced any real challenges besides school. He has no barometer for what it takes to succeed besides his own, and I think we can all agree it's a lot easier to do well if you grow up in a family making 400k+ a year. When you say product you have to take into account everything that is done to create the product and bring it to the consumer, build quality, packaging, marketing, etc. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right."So what if Apple is good at marketing the iPod? They generate huge revenues because of it, not to mention they have name recognition in addition to being the pioneer of the mp3 player segment. Just saying if you take all factors into account there will always be a reason for why one product will beat out another. That's just business. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 28 2008 21:32 Jibba wrote: No, you really can't. That argument is bogus. Just like it is to call people lazy if they make less money than you. CA obviously grew up in a privileged household and has likely never faced any real challenges besides school. He has no barometer for what it takes to succeed besides his own, and I think we can all agree it's a lot easier to do well if you grow up in a family making 400k+ a year. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right." it's not a free market, we've already said this it's a market that discourages new start ups and keeps large companies with plenty of change in business. See "Regulation." | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
[QUOTE]On July 28 2008 13:51 Caller wrote: [quote]Marketing and PR these days is becoming less and less effective. Too many people and too easy/cheap of a medium to change minds. Sure, companies can spend money on those, but its a risk and if the company director chooses to do so, that could salvage their reputation or hasten their failure.[/quote] dumbest thing i've ever heard .[/QUOTE] not quite, have you seen the cigarette companies ads? on one hand they attract custormers on the other hand it costs money and may attract more detractors as well. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32135 Posts
On July 27 2008 15:58 CaucasianAsian wrote: You really have to read what the hell I'm saying. PEOPLE LIKE TEACHERS KNOW THEY DONT MAKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. THEY CHOSE THAT PROFESSION FOR OTHER MEANS. You seem to believe that people who work for minimum wage work hard? There's a reason why they make minimum wage... Have you ever worked a day as a physical laborer? Try roofing or doing any kind of contrsuction and tell me that ain't working hard. This post screams 'IM A SPOILED LITTLE BITCH'. I really hope you wake up and realize how ignorant you sound before your parents cut you lose and you hit the real world. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32135 Posts
[QUOTE]On July 28 2008 15:39 mahnini wrote: [QUOTE]On July 28 2008 13:51 Caller wrote: [quote]Marketing and PR these days is becoming less and less effective. Too many people and too easy/cheap of a medium to change minds. Sure, companies can spend money on those, but its a risk and if the company director chooses to do so, that could salvage their reputation or hasten their failure.[/quote] dumbest thing i've ever heard .[/QUOTE] not quite, have you seen the cigarette companies ads? on one hand they attract custormers on the other hand it costs money and may attract more detractors as well.[/QUOTE] Marketing and PR ineffective? What the christ?? I guess that's why people spend millions on ads for the Superbowl each year? Budweiser must be the best selling domestic beer purely because of its taste? | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 28 2008 21:32 Jibba wrote: No, you really can't. That argument is bogus. Just like it is to call people lazy if they make less money than you. CA obviously grew up in a privileged household and has likely never faced any real challenges besides school. He has no barometer for what it takes to succeed besides his own, and I think we can all agree it's a lot easier to do well if you grow up in a family making 400k+ a year. I was mostly bringing issue to your analogy but keep in mind you are doing the exact same thing as CA expect reverse. Just because people are privileged doesn't mean they don't work hard as well, it does mean their parents worked their ass off and decided to hand it down to their kids. That's the choice of the parent and that's just life. As for the issue of people who make don't make money don't work hard, it entirely depends on what you mean by working hard. Is being a garbage man hard work? I bet it is and I bet it sucks, but you can't outright say he's there because some shmuck with a trust fund screwed him over. He's there because he has no education etc, etc. So in a sense, yes, they didn't work as hard in the past to get where they are now. You can talk about the inequality of backgrounds or whatever but the fact of the matter is the free market doesn't give a shit. If you decide to do a job that other people are willing to do for less money that's your own fault and no amount of fuck the man / richman can help you. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right." No, completely wrong. There is much more appeal to the iPod or like you said Nike shoes than just product quality. They are both established brands, they've done their research and attracted the right audience and gave their products the "feel" that people are looking for. The highest quality product or most efficient product won't always win. The products that win are the ones that generate consumer desire. This is the free market, it's not about the guy who makes the best product that the consumer buys, it's the guy who makes the best overall package and that convinces the consumer that he wants what he's selling. Not to mention the iPod isn't exactly a bad product, I have no idea about shoes but that's just nitpicking. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 28 2008 23:45 Hawk wrote: Marketing and PR ineffective? What the christ?? I guess that's why people spend millions on ads for the Superbowl each year? Budweiser must be the best selling domestic beer purely because of its taste? No, I said that Marketing and PR are not as effective as they used to be. Back when there was no internet, it was really hard to convey rumors, stories, anecdotes, and other details-you were forced to watch cable news and the like, most of which was sponsored by people and thus those stories would tend not to be released. Thus, marketing and PR were quite powerful. However, with the day of the internet, marketing does not quite have the widespread effect it has today, and often times a stupid (not intentionally) ad will get people laughing at you than buying your stuff. | ||
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11597 Posts
On July 28 2008 23:39 Hawk wrote: Have you ever worked a day as a physical laborer? Try roofing or doing any kind of contrsuction and tell me that ain't working hard. This post screams 'IM A SPOILED LITTLE BITCH'. I really hope you wake up and realize how ignorant you sound before your parents cut you lose and you hit the real world. I used to work construction night shifts working on roads, made $15 an hour. It is tough, that is why I am going to school in the fall. It is however not minimum wage, and it is possible to make enough money to live off of nicely. Maybe you can't drive a brand new car, and you might have to take the public transportation bus once in a while. But, you still can afford a place to live, afford to buy food, and go on a vacation once in a while. Given, you don't own a single family home, you might be sharing a house with some other people, or an apartment. What you still do not understand, a minimum wage job would be for example, filling up a soda can at your local movie theatre, emptying trashcans at your local burger king. These people don't work nearly as hard as other people, for example, roofers, construction which is what you stated. I worked for a roofing company a year ago, where I would help out. I wasn't a full time employee and I made like $13/hr. Full time employees made nearly twice that. Blue collard jobs are not minimum wage, you can make decent living. My friend is an electrician technichian, he is 18, and went right into the business, what he does is tough, he does hands on jobs, but he enjoys it and makes good money, he makes $45k a year. If you are going to try to call me ignorant, you should probably get your facts right and read what I write. Minimum wage jobs are not hard. Jobs such as working in a factory. A family friend of mine works in an airplane factory. He works on an assembly line. He makes $40k a year. What he does is stress provoking, and as told by Karl Marx, working in an industry as a labor worker, is very depressing. He doesn't like his job, his job is difficult, even though it is very repetitious it is a very mentally extraneous career. Then a job such as a teacher. Usually when a person wants to become a teacher, they do it because they want to influence the younger minds. They want to take part in hundreds of peoples lives, and watch people grow into what they will become in their future. They don't do it for the $60,000 a year salary with benefits. It's nice, but they have other reasons to teach. They know they aren't going to go into the field making millions. They don't worry about that. This is what I have been trying to portray to you. People who do go and get a college education, and decide to do something that doesn't involve making thousands and thousands of dollars, do it for other reasons than making tons of money. Maybe I am ignorant, maybe I don't know how the real world works. I have had past jobs, and I have had tons of stress from those jobs. I have made minimum wage, I have worked a labor job. I have first hand experience which you most likely do not have. Please if I am wrong, tell me why. | ||
|
eborp
United States266 Posts
Obama is one hell of a politician. His substance is actually starting to look like substance now, and his position papers are decent. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 29 2008 02:36 mahnini wrote: I'm not saying that privileged people don't work hard, I'm saying if you grow up in an upper class house, it's a lot easier to succeed. Take his sister for example and compare her to a student who has to support her own way through college, or a highschooler his age who doesn't know when his next meal will be. It doesn't apply directly to all individual examples, but I bet it applies to most.I was mostly bringing issue to your analogy but keep in mind you are doing the exact same thing as CA expect reverse. Just because people are privileged doesn't mean they don't work hard as well, it does mean their parents worked their ass off and decided to hand it down to their kids. That's the choice of the parent and that's just life. As for the issue of people who make don't make money don't work hard, it entirely depends on what you mean by working hard. Is being a garbage man hard work? I bet it is and I bet it sucks, but you can't outright say he's there because some shmuck with a trust fund screwed him over. He's there because he has no education etc, etc. So in a sense, yes, they didn't work as hard in the past to get where they are now. You can talk about the inequality of backgrounds or whatever but the fact of the matter is the free market doesn't give a shit. If you decide to do a job that other people are willing to do for less money that's your own fault and no amount of fuck the man / richman can help you. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right." No, completely wrong. There is much more appeal to the iPod or like you said Nike shoes than just product quality. They are both established brands, they've done their research and attracted the right audience and gave their products the "feel" that people are looking for. The highest quality product or most efficient product won't always win. The products that win are the ones that generate consumer desire. This is the free market, it's not about the guy who makes the best product that the consumer buys, it's the guy who makes the best overall package and that convinces the consumer that he wants what he's selling. Not to mention the iPod isn't exactly a bad product, I have no idea about shoes but that's just nitpicking. CA, I'm curious where you live that teachers make $60,000 a year. The problem is almost all of your statements reek of "poor people deserve to be poor", when you've had no experience with it whatsoever. Blue collar jobs like plumbers and electricians actually get paid pretty well, but those require further training. It's not as simple as "working hard" to get somewhere, there's a whole host of issues that happen in every day life and make it more difficult to escape poverty. It's a substantive experience. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 29 2008 10:48 Jibba wrote: The free market doesn't work properly without total information and that simply doesn't exist. Marketing is one of the ways that the lines get blurred. And even if it does work, maybe the majority of humans don't make the best decision for improving society and overall quality of life. CA, I'm curious where you live that teachers make $60,000 a year. The problem is almost all of your statements reek of "poor people deserve to be poor", when you've had no experience with it whatsoever. Blue collar jobs like plumbers and electricians actually get paid pretty well, but those require further training. It's not as simple as "working hard" to get somewhere, there's a whole host of issues that happen in every day life and make it more difficult to escape poverty. It's a substantive experience. the reason total information doesn't exist is that there is currently corporatism. It's really easy to hide everything if politicians are protecting your back. And if we can't trust the majority of humans to improving society and quality of life, why should we trust a socialism or even a communism, which are composed of people that are picked by a majority? Teachers in my area don't make 60k (i wish i did... lol) but they do fairly well for themselves, as well as having a kick ass pension. And escaping poverty is a lot easier than you think. It just requires incentive. If people are getting free money and stuff for being poor, is there any incentive for rising up than the ranks? | ||
|
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11597 Posts
On July 29 2008 10:48 Jibba wrote: I'm not saying that privileged people don't work hard, I'm saying if you grow up in an upper class house, it's a lot easier to succeed. Take his sister for example and compare her to a student who has to support her own way through college, or a highschooler his age who doesn't know when his next meal will be. It doesn't apply directly to all individual examples, but I bet it applies to most. The free market doesn't work properly without total information and that simply doesn't exist. Marketing is one of the ways that the lines get blurred. And even if it does work, maybe the majority of humans don't make the best decision for improving society and overall quality of life. CA, I'm curious where you live that teachers make $60,000 a year. The problem is almost all of your statements reek of "poor people deserve to be poor", when you've had no experience with it whatsoever. Blue collar jobs like plumbers and electricians actually get paid pretty well, but those require further training. It's not as simple as "working hard" to get somewhere, there's a whole host of issues that happen in every day life and make it more difficult to escape poverty. It's a substantive experience. I live in northern virginia, and public school teachers make between 40k and 80k depending on how long you've been teaching. I never said anything about poor people deserve to be poor, if that is how it is being portrayed, that is not what I'm trying to describe. Instead, I believe that no matter your current circumstance, it is possible to better yourself and your family. Of course there are some people living in the ghettos, and are forced into drug dealing or being killed, and they can't get out of their situation. I'm talking about the people over than the 36 million currently in poverty. It is very difficult to get out of poverty, there are so many circumstances etc... that are causing the situation, and many more to come every day. What I am instead saying, if you are not one of the 36 million in poverty, you have all the chances in the world to improve your living conditions. It is a choice people make to be where they are. Even if they don't say "I want to be a McDonalds cashier" they instead say things like, "I don't want to join the military, I don't want to get a college loan, I don't want to take this opportunity". It is a conscious decision to decide where they are. Almost everyone decides their fate of where they are economically. Maybe not for the first 18 or so years, but after that, there are so many chances to get out of your circumstance. Back, 20-30 years ago, going to college was for the rich, and usually upper class. Because they are the ones who could afford it. However, now, with so many other chances such as scholarships, grants, loans, military service which pays for your college education, etc... Gaining a further education than high school is almost an affair everyone goes through if they live in the U.S. In some states, such as Georgia, college is free if you meet the requirements. (It's similar to Germany's way) Since everyone has a chance to get an education for how widespread and convenient it is, with online classes, community colleges, etc... There is very little room to argue that people don't decide that they are poor. People who are poor in the long run, are there for reasons that they chose, no matter how ignorant that sounds, it is true. With hard work, people can literally do and become anything they want, given they are not one of the 37 million Americans living in poverty. What this has to do with Obama is that, he wants to help those 37 million who live in poverty, by reducing their federal income. What I don't think you understand, is that the majority of these people who do live in Poverty, don't have a job. My uncle is one of them. My Uncle Lee had everything for him, he had a free house to live in, left in his parents will. He used to have a job where he made maybe 200k a year working as a manager in a steel factory. After the factory went under and he lost his job when he was 21, he never worked again. He never worked on the house, he never applied for a job. Eventually just a year ago, his house caved in, and he lives off of wellfare checks given by the government so he can live in a rundown apartment. It is his fault he is there, he never tried to get a job, he never tried to help his living arrangements. I don't know how ignorant this sounds, but I'm not just throwing things out of my ass, the majority of people Obama wants to help, don't want to help themselves. My Uncle as an example. And the majority of the people Obama wants help from (the increase in tax from the richer class) are the ones who decided, "Hey, I'm not going to live off wellfare checks, I'm going to make something of myself, I'm going to be independent." Labor jobs, Business, Athletes, laweyers, doctors, teachers, trashmen, etc... I do look down upon people who don't work hard. If a person is a trashman, and that is the best they can do, if they have tried and tried, and worked so hard, and that is the best they can do, then I am proud of them, I accept them and respect them. However if someone doesn't do shit like my Uncle, I don't give a fuck who you are, you are not working, you are in poverty because you decided not to work, you decided not to get a job, you decided to be where you are. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
There's still a couple of points that I think are off. Even though it's easier to attend college, education inflation has increased dramatically over the past 40 years. In 1960 you could get your highschool diploma and immediately begin a factory career, living very comfortably and probably being upper middle class when you retire. Now a college degree is the norm, and most people who get one aren't going to live as well as that factory worker from 1960. I think an important issue to tackle is the psychological discouragement that can easily occur if you grow up in that situation. Those things are rooted in education, poor services and a lot of other issues that need to be addressed. It becomes far more difficult to fight your way out of something when you become depressed, and that's still a serious issue in this country. That's a lot of what the Hope campaign is about. If you simply look at taxes and welfare plans, you're missing the big picture on how it's trying to improve society. Community building is a huge part of the campaign structure at the moment, and he's trying to encourage more community service and to simply create more visible opportunities so people understand how they can become independent. It's skimming from the top, but the goal is that everyone benefits in other areas in the long run. And it's not simply bs, he takes a very academic point of view in many areas, especially those relating to social sciences. | ||
| ||
