|
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 May 11 2015 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 02:52 corumjhaelen wrote:
true [citation needed]
Oh well not when it comes to marxism.
Edit : not that I expect you to find any value in a work you haven't read, and have no idea what it contains apart from the fact that it attacks your values. It's not crazy talk because it 'attacks my values'. I don't think IgnE's post 'attacked my values' at all. Well, I do value education and rational analysis... so I guess he did attack that. It's crazy talk because it's Marxist garbage about how workers totally feel and act without any reference for how workers actually feel and act. If you bother to talk to workers, they'll say things at odds with Marx. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! As for Marxism being an intellectual dead end, just read the posts Marxists here make. They have plenty of criticisms but zero solutions. When the world still had communist run economies they relied heavily on copying market economies to find solutions to problems. They're really quite pathetic.
You are dishonest or stupid, probably both. Workers making improvements on their mortgaged houses is completely irrelevant to Marxist criticism. Any perceived conflict between what workers "actually" say and feel is left unstated by you so you can make sweeping, baseless conclusions about Marx's relevance.
Ask the bottom 50th percentile whether they are satisfied with their work and those numbers would look a lot worse than they already do.
I knew you would just quote one of my posts when I asked you for specifics because you can't even articulate what you disagree with. A clear indication that your anger and frustration is based in a value-laden morality, wherein "commietalk" primarily offends your sense of propriety.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:On May 10 2015 13:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 09:49 WhiteDog wrote:
Jonny never read any economic book, and never read any marx. Just some textbook. Yes, those horrible things they use in those white, cis, male, capitalistic, and patriarchal institutions known as universities. Truly the tools of oppression T.T On May 10 2015 11:57 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure several disciplines in the social sciences still draw upon some of Marx's ideas. Though in Anthropology at least researchers seem to be moving away and onto newer perspectives a bit (but what do I know what those sociocultural anths do~ heh) They demonstrate that black lives matter of course. lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler +
The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data.
The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like.
None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
|
|
|
On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:26 WhiteDog wrote:Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. Yes that was the point of the discussion, and you trying to change the subject show time and time again how useless it is to discuss with you. "Full stop" lol. I never argued that it increased margin, I never used the term margin in those posts, I said it was social dumping, and that labor cost was a small part of the production costs. Please, respond to points I make, not some secondary point that you thought you read between the lines. Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then.
When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now.
I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you.
And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did.
Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs.
Show nested quote +Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs.
What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
|
On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:On May 10 2015 13:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 09:49 WhiteDog wrote:
Jonny never read any economic book, and never read any marx. Just some textbook. Yes, those horrible things they use in those white, cis, male, capitalistic, and patriarchal institutions known as universities. Truly the tools of oppression T.T On May 10 2015 11:57 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure several disciplines in the social sciences still draw upon some of Marx's ideas. Though in Anthropology at least researchers seem to be moving away and onto newer perspectives a bit (but what do I know what those sociocultural anths do~ heh) They demonstrate that black lives matter of course. lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point.
Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
|
On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:On May 10 2015 13:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 09:49 WhiteDog wrote:
Jonny never read any economic book, and never read any marx. Just some textbook. Yes, those horrible things they use in those white, cis, male, capitalistic, and patriarchal institutions known as universities. Truly the tools of oppression T.T On May 10 2015 11:57 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure several disciplines in the social sciences still draw upon some of Marx's ideas. Though in Anthropology at least researchers seem to be moving away and onto newer perspectives a bit (but what do I know what those sociocultural anths do~ heh) They demonstrate that black lives matter of course. lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
|
On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:On May 10 2015 13:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 09:49 WhiteDog wrote:
Jonny never read any economic book, and never read any marx. Just some textbook. Yes, those horrible things they use in those white, cis, male, capitalistic, and patriarchal institutions known as universities. Truly the tools of oppression T.T On May 10 2015 11:57 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure several disciplines in the social sciences still draw upon some of Marx's ideas. Though in Anthropology at least researchers seem to be moving away and onto newer perspectives a bit (but what do I know what those sociocultural anths do~ heh) They demonstrate that black lives matter of course. lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
I'm not sure you really understand what exploitation of labor means in the Marxian sense. But your hysteria about unions is funny.
Of course people want to work rather than be unemployed. There's no contradiction there.
|
On May 11 2015 11:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:On May 10 2015 13:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Yes, those horrible things they use in those white, cis, male, capitalistic, and patriarchal institutions known as universities. Truly the tools of oppression T.T [quote] They demonstrate that black lives matter of course. lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. I'm not sure you really understand what exploitation of labor means in the Marxian sense. But your hysteria about unions is funny. Of course people want to work rather than be unemployed. There's no contradiction there.
Oh good, so you're not actually a Marxist. That's a relief.
EDIT: The bad news is that after the proletarian revolution, you're going to be shot along with Jonny.
|
On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:On May 10 2015 13:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Yes, those horrible things they use in those white, cis, male, capitalistic, and patriarchal institutions known as universities. Truly the tools of oppression T.T [quote] They demonstrate that black lives matter of course. lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get?
They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
|
On May 11 2015 11:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get? They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
And condescending libertarians who regularly ignore the gaping holes in their own ideologies by being coy.
At least the liberals tell them they have the right to food, shelter, and healthcare. In your ideal world these people would be euthanised through the neglect of our new free market overlords.
|
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) would have authorized the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, putting the likely 2016 presidential contender on the same page as his brother George W. Bush, the president who actually did so.
“I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got,” Bush told Fox News' Megyn Kelly in an interview scheduled to air Monday.
But he acknowledged that the "intelligence that everybody saw, that the world saw, was faulty," adding that after the invasion, the U.S. ought to have focused on securing and stabilizing Iraq in order to shield its people from sectarian violence.
“By the way, guess who thinks that those mistakes took place as well? George W. Bush. Yes, I mean, so just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those," Jeb Bush said.
While the former governor has admitted mistakes made by his brother's administration during the Iraq War in the past, his public comments affirming his support for the 2003 invasion appear to be a first. They also mark a shift in how Bush has spoken about his brother amid criticism of his costly legacy abroad, which could hinder Bush’s likely run for president in 2016.
Source
|
On May 11 2015 11:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 11:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found.
I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get? They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better. And condescending libertarians who regularly ignore the gaping holes in their own ideologies by being coy. At least the liberals tell them they have the right to food, shelter, and healthcare. In your ideal world these people would be euthanised through the neglect of our new free market overlords.
Totally. That's why I defended foodstamps from liberals who called the program 'corporate welfare.'
|
Food stamps are merely a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound. That the free market doesn't see fit to price food into people's wages is your problem, not mine, because my (nonexistent) economical ideology doesn't revolve around the invisibly benevolent hand of the free market.
|
It is unfair to say jonny is a radical free market libertarian. He's a capitalist mandarin, an ideological pragmatist, reared on the classic textbooks. He studies bourgeois economics, thinks he's doing scientific work, and really believes that the work he's doing to manipulate economic statistics will help our titans of industry keep the growth coming for years to come.
|
On May 11 2015 11:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get? They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better.
Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist.
Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men.
Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing.
I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
|
On May 11 2015 12:11 Jormundr wrote:
Food stamps are merely a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound. That the free market doesn't see fit to price food into people's wages is your problem, not mine, because my (nonexistent) economical ideology doesn't revolve around the invisibly benevolent hand of the free market.
WTF are you talking about?
|
On May 10 2015 12:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +In the eyes of an economist, my students were “misbehaving.” By that I mean that their behavior was inconsistent with the idealized model at the heart of much of economics. Rationally, no one should be happier about a score of 96 out of 137 (70 percent) than 72 out of 100, but my students were. And by realizing this, I was able to set the kind of exam I wanted but still keep the students from grumbling.
This illustrates an important problem with traditional economic theory. Economists discount any factors that would not influence the thinking of a rational person. These things are supposedly irrelevant. But unfortunately for the theory, many supposedly irrelevant factors do matter.
Economists create this problem with their insistence on studying mythical creatures often known as Homo economicus. I prefer to call them “Econs”— highly intelligent beings that are capable of making the most complex of calculations but are totally lacking in emotions. Think of Mr. Spock in “Star Trek.” In a world of Econs, many things would in fact be irrelevant.
No Econ would buy a larger portion of whatever will be served for dinner on Tuesday because he happens to be hungry when shopping on Sunday. Your hunger on Sunday should be irrelevant in choosing the size of your meal for Tuesday. An Econ would not finish that huge meal on Tuesday, even though he is no longer hungry, just because he had paid for it. To an Econ, the price paid for an item in the past is not relevant in making the decision about how much of it to eat now. Source
Re: Homo Economics
There are two things that are important to this. First, I understand the theory to accept that these "emotional" biases exist, but it assumes in aggregate they balance out (one day you shop hungry, the next full). Second, for those variables with a "systemic" emotional bias I don't understand what this guy's contribution is. If it exists in people, it would also exist with those same people when they are in the voting booth or writing legislation or carrying out legislation. So it seems like a "look how smart I am disagreeing with people" argument, rather than a substantive contribution.
This is always the issue, of course, that you shouldn't assume people outside of the marketplace act any more altruistically than within it.
|
On May 11 2015 12:28 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 11:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found.
I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get? They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better. Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men. Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing. I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive.
I think you're mixing what some radical, and extremely rare, libertarians think rather than what a typical capitalist would think. If you send some time at a business or econ school or with managers / investors or the like, you won't find them echoing that sentiment. If you do, you'll find them to be very rare.
|
Nike announced Friday that it plans to create 10,000 jobs if the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is approved.
The statement came shortly before President Obama’s visit to the Nike campus in Beaverton to discuss the trade agreement. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on OPB’s Morning Edition that the economic benefit is likely to be much larger.
“If you consider their suppliers and other small businesses that benefit from Nike’s presence in Oregon, that we are probably looking at broader benefit of forty thousand American jobs,” Earnest said.
Earnest also said the TPP will differ from other trade agreements because it will have enforceable labor and environmental standards written into it.
“What that means is that it balances the playing field a little bit and that means that American companies are going to grow and are going to start to expand here in the United States,” Earnest said.
Sen. Ron Wyden is a proponent of the agreement, but not all Democrats in Oregon agree. Rep. Peter Defazio is concerned that corporate interests are manipulating the TPP.
Source
Warren/DeFazio 2016 plox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rly7fx4r6ucjby0emu9hiw.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QZPIUR2.png)
![[image loading]](http://prosperouswaydown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/commonspoem.jpg)
