|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2014 04:06 Nyxisto wrote:
The whole "Every man is the architect of his own fortune" ideology that you need to justify not fighting social injustice is completely unhistorical, unscientific and illogical. We're not magical unicorns that can do what we want. Wolfstan's example of the guy living on his couch making poor decisions doesn't disprove anything. The point is not that he makes poor decisions, it's that the sentence "he could have made other decisions" doesn't make any sense. He couldn't. You can only make one decision at a time and that's the one you make. ("You can do what you want but you can't want what you want")
The whole thing keeps working because everybody likes to think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Admitting that not everyone can have a life like Bill Gates isn't defeatism, it's a simple reality. Even Bill Gates couldn't live like Bill Gates if their wasn't a giant horde of poor people that do all the work that keeps the system intact. It is simpler defining your opponent's ideology, wrapping that up in a straw man, and then putting forward your own fuzzily defined issues (social injustice, for one) than arguing the policies and outcomes themselves. All you have here is your lofty opinion that guys like Bill Gates only have their lifestyle because of the "giant horde of poor people that do all the work." What a cynical and fatalistic life outlook.
On September 20 2014 10:48 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 09:08 coverpunch wrote:On September 20 2014 08:38 dp wrote:
Wolfstan,
Saying someone is self made without attributing any of their success on the conditions of their upbringing/parents class is disingenuous. That shit all is a part of it. It is easy to come into a discussion using your personal situation and having a slanted view on things as they really are in the world around you.
When it comes to wealth, simply passing down inheritance is only a portion of the equation, as much as some would like to dismiss the other aspects of it. You obviously acknowledge the fact the higher classes inherit as well, "their parents character, network, work ethic, and values". To act as if these are unattributed to their success is a far cry from reality.
While going from high class to ultra wealthy is definitely not easy, to attribute the praise without acknowledging the head start is once again, disingenuous to the argument. Totally agree with this. It's the context, not the resources per se, that are important. Rich people don't just have the advantage of money and money in and of itself doesn't make them more likely to be successful, even the things money can buy. But it's the social environment, one in which they're much more likely to be encouraged and nurtured to meet their potential while being taught to avoid broad pitfalls that leads to different outcomes. It's not a guarantee of success, of course, but everyone acknowledges that they set many of those "necessary but not sufficient" conditions that poorer people may not. Good, we all agree on a basic premise that good parenting can be attributed to success and good habits and choices as a result of that parenting. I just follow that thought that redistribution will not fix inequality, poor people will still be raised poor to whine about their lot in life, and wealthy people will still be encouraged and nurtured to meet their potential. Still though, wealthy person playing the game well somehow "doesn't count" while the poor person falling down the ladder bringing others with them "isn't their fault" mentality is very toxic. It discourages and discounts growth and enables defeatism. Nice recap of the pernicious double-standard of the demagogue.
|
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) -- The federal government refuses to say whether prosecutors in Yuma, Arizona, have scaled back a years-old program that guarantees jail time for most immigrants caught crossing the border illegally and which law enforcement officials say is crucial to public safety.
Reports that federal prosecutors have stopped some prosecutions under Operation Streamline surfaced nearly two weeks ago when Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder seeking information on the status of the zero-tolerance program that circumvents the civil immigration system and lumps together months' worth of criminal proceedings into one day for immigrants caught crossing the border illegally.
Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot said in a letter to the senators that he had been informed that federal prosecutors in Yuma are no longer going after first offenders. AP
|
On September 21 2014 07:58 Danglars wrote:
It is simpler defining your opponent's ideology, wrapping that up in a straw man, and then putting forward your own fuzzily defined issues (social injustice, for one) than arguing the policies and outcomes themselves. All you have here is your lofty opinion that guys like Bill Gates only have their lifestyle because of the "giant horde of poor people that do all the work." What a cynical and fatalistic life outlook.
.
That isn't a strawman, that's quite literally how it works. The resources that are needed to build electronics are mined by cheap labour in the third world, Steve Jobs didn't build every iPhone himself, they are being manufactured in China. Bill Gates didn't clean the Microsoft Headquarters or prepare the food that was served in the company's cafeteria. For the system to work a huge amount of people doing simple jobs is a necessity. So naturally, for rich people to be rich there will always be a lot of people that need to do the simple work.
Try to figure out what a smartphone would cost if everybody down the production line would be fairly compensated by Western standards of living.
|
AP snipes at the Obama administration's lack of transparency, listing 8 ways access is being closed off:
1) As the United States ramps up its fight against Islamic militants, the public can’t see any of it. News organizations can’t shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off — there are no embeds. In fact, the administration won’t even say what country the S. bombers fly from.
2) The White House once fought to get cameramen, photographers and reporters into meetings the president had with foreign leaders overseas. That access has become much rarer. Think about the message that sends other nations about how the world’s leading democracy deals with the media: Keep them out and let them use handout photos.
3) Guantanamo: The big important 9/11 trial is finally coming up. But we aren’t allowed to see most court filings in real time — even of nonclassified material. So at hearings, we can’t follow what’s happening. We don’t know what prosecutors are asking for, or what defense attorneys are arguing.
4) Information about Guantanamo that was routinely released under President George W. Bush is now kept secret. The military won’t release the number of prisoners on hunger strike or the number of assaults on guards. Photo and video coverage is virtually nonexistent.
5) Day-to-day intimidation of sources is chilling. AP’s transportation reporter’s sources say that if they are caught talking to her, they will be fired. Even if they just give her facts, about safety, for example. Government press officials say their orders are to squelch anything controversial or that makes the administration look bad.
6) One of the media — and public’s — most important legal tools, the Freedom of Information Act, is under siege. Requests for information under FOIA have become slow and expensive. Many federal agencies simply don’t respond at all in a timely manner, forcing news organizations to sue each time to force action.
7) The administration uses FOIAs as a tip service to uncover what news organizations are pursuing. Requests are now routinely forwarded to political appointees. At the agency that oversees the new health care law, for example, political appointees now handle the FOIA requests.
8) The administration is trying to control the information that state and local officials can give out. The FBI has directed local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology the police departments use to sweep up cellphone data. In some cases, federal officials have formally intervened in state open records cases, arguing for secrecy.
If you think about it, there are a lot fewer embeds and a lot less information coming out about developing legal theories, which were basically the source of the Bush administration's biggest headaches. Direct information, especially about questionable legal theories, led to the accusations that the Bush administration didn't care about the rule of law because it sought to bend them and get as close to the limits as possible. Obama is still doing it and might even be going further into the gray, but he's been much more successful at quashing the discussion of where the lines are and whether the US has been strictly complying with them.
|
On September 21 2014 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 07:58 Danglars wrote:
It is simpler defining your opponent's ideology, wrapping that up in a straw man, and then putting forward your own fuzzily defined issues (social injustice, for one) than arguing the policies and outcomes themselves. All you have here is your lofty opinion that guys like Bill Gates only have their lifestyle because of the "giant horde of poor people that do all the work." What a cynical and fatalistic life outlook.
. That isn't a strawman, that's quite literally how it works. The resources that are needed to build electronics are mined by cheap labour in the third world, Steve Jobs didn't build every iPhone himself, they are being manufactured in China. Bill Gates didn't clean the Microsoft Headquarters or prepare the food that was served in the company's cafeteria. For the system to work a huge amount of people doing simple jobs is a necessity. So naturally, for rich people to be rich there will always be a lot of people that need to do the simple work.
In cases like this, there also need to be a lot of people to do the very technical work; it's very likely that Gates, for example, hasn't written a substantial amount of code in any Microsoft products since the BASIC interpreter. After all, Microsoft bought DOS, and after relicensing it to IBM, he sure as shit didn't need to write anything himself.
|
On September 21 2014 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 07:58 Danglars wrote:
It is simpler defining your opponent's ideology, wrapping that up in a straw man, and then putting forward your own fuzzily defined issues (social injustice, for one) than arguing the policies and outcomes themselves. All you have here is your lofty opinion that guys like Bill Gates only have their lifestyle because of the "giant horde of poor people that do all the work." What a cynical and fatalistic life outlook.
. That isn't a strawman, that's quite literally how it works. The resources that are needed to build electronics are mined by cheap labour in the third world, Steve Jobs didn't build every iPhone himself, they are being manufactured in China. Bill Gates didn't clean the Microsoft Headquarters or prepare the food that was served in the company's cafeteria. For the system to work a huge amount of people doing simple jobs is a necessity. So naturally, for rich people to be rich there will always be a lot of people that need to do the simple work. Try to figure out what a smartphone would cost if everybody down the production line would be fairly compensated by Western standards of living.
Wait, but you understand this is a supply and demand problem, right? There are lots of people who can dig in the ground and mine resources. There are not many people who can come up with an idea for a touchscreen smartphone, or at least there weren't in 2007. Similarly, there are people who are willing to dig holes and mine for very low wages, and there are very few people who are willing to generate revolutionary new ideas that lead to world-beating sales for very little money.
You don't make things better by overpaying workers a "fair" wage. Just ask Detroit how that worked out.
You don't make things better by allowing rich people to exploit and abuse their wealth either, but you're not complaining about those specific issues.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in the real world compensation doesn't have to be in line with productivity. given the physical and legal characteristics of the world, you can still generate huge amount of power from things like early adopter advantage, networking, legal monopolies.
|
On September 21 2014 08:48 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:On September 21 2014 07:58 Danglars wrote:
It is simpler defining your opponent's ideology, wrapping that up in a straw man, and then putting forward your own fuzzily defined issues (social injustice, for one) than arguing the policies and outcomes themselves. All you have here is your lofty opinion that guys like Bill Gates only have their lifestyle because of the "giant horde of poor people that do all the work." What a cynical and fatalistic life outlook.
. That isn't a strawman, that's quite literally how it works. The resources that are needed to build electronics are mined by cheap labour in the third world, Steve Jobs didn't build every iPhone himself, they are being manufactured in China. Bill Gates didn't clean the Microsoft Headquarters or prepare the food that was served in the company's cafeteria. For the system to work a huge amount of people doing simple jobs is a necessity. So naturally, for rich people to be rich there will always be a lot of people that need to do the simple work. Try to figure out what a smartphone would cost if everybody down the production line would be fairly compensated by Western standards of living. Wait, but you understand this is a supply and demand problem, right? There are lots of people who can dig in the ground and mine resources. There are not many people who can come up with an idea for a touchscreen smartphone, or at least there weren't in 2007. Similarly, there are people who are willing to dig holes and mine for very low wages, and there are very few people who are willing to generate revolutionary new ideas that lead to world-beating sales for very little money. You don't make things better by overpaying workers a "fair" wage. Just ask Detroit how that worked out. You don't make things better by allowing rich people to exploit and abuse their wealth either, but you're not complaining about those specific issues.
yeah, i am sure that all the people in the mineral fields in africa are very "willing to do so" and that paying a fair wage causes cities to literally become Detroit
|
On September 21 2014 08:48 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:On September 21 2014 07:58 Danglars wrote:
It is simpler defining your opponent's ideology, wrapping that up in a straw man, and then putting forward your own fuzzily defined issues (social injustice, for one) than arguing the policies and outcomes themselves. All you have here is your lofty opinion that guys like Bill Gates only have their lifestyle because of the "giant horde of poor people that do all the work." What a cynical and fatalistic life outlook.
. That isn't a strawman, that's quite literally how it works. The resources that are needed to build electronics are mined by cheap labour in the third world, Steve Jobs didn't build every iPhone himself, they are being manufactured in China. Bill Gates didn't clean the Microsoft Headquarters or prepare the food that was served in the company's cafeteria. For the system to work a huge amount of people doing simple jobs is a necessity. So naturally, for rich people to be rich there will always be a lot of people that need to do the simple work. Try to figure out what a smartphone would cost if everybody down the production line would be fairly compensated by Western standards of living. Wait, but you understand this is a supply and demand problem, right? There are lots of people who can dig in the ground and mine resources. There are not many people who can come up with an idea for a touchscreen smartphone, or at least there weren't in 2007. Similarly, there are people who are willing to dig holes and mine for very low wages, and there are very few people who are willing to generate revolutionary new ideas that lead to world-beating sales for very little money. You don't make things better by overpaying workers a "fair" wage. Just ask Detroit how that worked out. You don't make things better by allowing rich people to exploit and abuse their wealth either, but you're not complaining about those specific issues.
The simple point I was trying to make is that for every wealthy person being able to accumulate all their money, there need to be a lot of people that are currently being exploited. And if you want the system to continue, the existence of these jobs is simply a necessity. And if that is the case I'd argue it makes sense that these people are fairly compensated.
This is not a "supply and demand" issue. It's an ethical issue. If everybody is an integral part of the system everybody has the right to a minimum standard.
|
On September 21 2014 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
There are not many people who can come up with an idea for a touchscreen smartphone, or at least there weren't in 2007.
It wasn't a novel idea, and certainly not in 2007. IBM, HP and Microsoft all had smartphones with touchscreens on the market before Apple.
|
On September 21 2014 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 07:58 Danglars wrote:
It is simpler defining your opponent's ideology, wrapping that up in a straw man, and then putting forward your own fuzzily defined issues (social injustice, for one) than arguing the policies and outcomes themselves. All you have here is your lofty opinion that guys like Bill Gates only have their lifestyle because of the "giant horde of poor people that do all the work." What a cynical and fatalistic life outlook.
. That isn't a strawman, that's quite literally how it works. The resources that are needed to build electronics are mined by cheap labour in the third world, Steve Jobs didn't build every iPhone himself, they are being manufactured in China. Bill Gates didn't clean the Microsoft Headquarters or prepare the food that was served in the company's cafeteria. For the system to work a huge amount of people doing simple jobs is a necessity. So naturally, for rich people to be rich there will always be a lot of people that need to do the simple work. Try to figure out what a smartphone would cost if everybody down the production line would be fairly compensated by Western standards of living.
You are correct, but it's a two way street. Cheap labor can work really hard making mud pies and the population can starve to death. Conversely, cheap labor employed to make electronics or textiles leaves everyone better off. Allocating scarce resources well is really important.
|
On September 21 2014 09:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 08:48 coverpunch wrote:On September 21 2014 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:On September 21 2014 07:58 Danglars wrote:
It is simpler defining your opponent's ideology, wrapping that up in a straw man, and then putting forward your own fuzzily defined issues (social injustice, for one) than arguing the policies and outcomes themselves. All you have here is your lofty opinion that guys like Bill Gates only have their lifestyle because of the "giant horde of poor people that do all the work." What a cynical and fatalistic life outlook.
. That isn't a strawman, that's quite literally how it works. The resources that are needed to build electronics are mined by cheap labour in the third world, Steve Jobs didn't build every iPhone himself, they are being manufactured in China. Bill Gates didn't clean the Microsoft Headquarters or prepare the food that was served in the company's cafeteria. For the system to work a huge amount of people doing simple jobs is a necessity. So naturally, for rich people to be rich there will always be a lot of people that need to do the simple work. Try to figure out what a smartphone would cost if everybody down the production line would be fairly compensated by Western standards of living. Wait, but you understand this is a supply and demand problem, right? There are lots of people who can dig in the ground and mine resources. There are not many people who can come up with an idea for a touchscreen smartphone, or at least there weren't in 2007. Similarly, there are people who are willing to dig holes and mine for very low wages, and there are very few people who are willing to generate revolutionary new ideas that lead to world-beating sales for very little money. You don't make things better by overpaying workers a "fair" wage. Just ask Detroit how that worked out. You don't make things better by allowing rich people to exploit and abuse their wealth either, but you're not complaining about those specific issues. The simple point I was trying to make is that for every wealthy person being able to accumulate all their money, there need to be a lot of people that are currently being exploited. And if you want the system to continue, the existence of these jobs is simply a necessity. And if that is the case I'd argue it makes sense that these people are fairly compensated. This is not a "supply and demand" issue. It's an ethical issue. If everybody is an integral part of the system everybody has the right to a minimum standard.
Well, that depends on what you're talking about. Wages in the third wold can't be as high as in first world countries - workers just aren't productive enough to support that wage level.
|
I am well aware that we probably can't save the whole world, but providing a fair environment for workers in our countries instead of eroding the social security net or privatizing vital parts of the economy would probably be a start. In most of the developed countries it basically looks like taxation and redistribution are declining or stagnating, while living costs are rising way too fast.
|
On September 21 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:
I am well aware that we probably can't save the whole world, but providing a fair environment for workers in our countries instead of eroding the social security net or privatizing vital parts of the economy would probably be a start. In most of the developed countries it basically looks like taxation and redistribution are declining or stagnating, while living costs are rising way too fast.
Isn't that from German lead austerity?
|
On September 21 2014 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:
I am well aware that we probably can't save the whole world, but providing a fair environment for workers in our countries instead of eroding the social security net or privatizing vital parts of the economy would probably be a start. In most of the developed countries it basically looks like taxation and redistribution are declining or stagnating, while living costs are rising way too fast. Isn't that from German lead austerity?
The incentive to reduce debt is, but I'm pretty sure the repercussions for the broad public could have been avoided by increasing taxes on capital gains, high incomes and wealth rather than increasing consumer taxes and reducing welfare. (which is something the national governments have decided to do.)
|
On September 21 2014 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:
I am well aware that we probably can't save the whole world, but providing a fair environment for workers in our countries instead of eroding the social security net or privatizing vital parts of the economy would probably be a start. In most of the developed countries it basically looks like taxation and redistribution are declining or stagnating, while living costs are rising way too fast. Isn't that from German lead austerity? The incentive to reduce debt is, but I'm pretty sure the repercussions for the broad public could have been avoided by increasing taxes on capital gains, high incomes and wealth rather than increasing consumer taxes and reducing welfare.
But Germany was the lender country. If you hit wealth harder than labor, Germany would have taken a proportionally larger hit... hence austerity and internal devaluation was pushed instead.
|
Contrary to popular belief Europe still consists of sovereign nations that are not run by Germany
|
Anyone who thinks Bill Gates wouldn't have done what he did unless he received exactly the $100+ billion in compensation that he received is an idiot. Bill Gates probably would have been very happy with a few million, maybe less, and all the windows software he generated still would have been generated. In fact the software would likely have been better because the profit motive of establishing a legal monopoly likely wouldn't have existed. The tech world is where this compensation for ideas model is most obviously glaringly false.
|
On September 21 2014 11:34 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who thinks Bill Gates wouldn't have done what he did unless he received exactly the $100+ billion in compensation that he received is an idiot. Bill Gates probably would have been very happy with a few million, maybe less, and all the windows software he generated still would have been generated. In fact the software would likely have been better because the profit motive of establishing a legal monopoly likely wouldn't have existed. The tech world is where this compensation for ideas model is most obviously glaringly false.
No one serious is making that argument. Most of his wealth came from an ownership stake in a company he helped found, not compensation for work rendered. For him to have not gotten so rich he'd have to have sold a stake in his company really, really cheap and probably would have regretted it later when he saw how rich the investors had gotten.
|
On September 21 2014 11:34 IgnE wrote:
Anyone who thinks Bill Gates wouldn't have done what he did unless he received exactly the $100+ billion in compensation that he received is an idiot. Bill Gates probably would have been very happy with a few million, maybe less, and all the windows software he generated still would have been generated. In fact the software would likely have been better because the profit motive of establishing a legal monopoly likely wouldn't have existed. The tech world is where this compensation for ideas model is most obviously glaringly false.
Since you Nyxisto seem to love the populist platitudes and haven't staked any solutions can I assume that you are in the "tax income over 1 milliion at 90% camp?" Any jurisdictions in the world have 90% progressive tax successfully? The world has too many whiny people complaining that some have so much while others have so little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
