|
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 November 22 2015 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 12:31 heliusx wrote:On November 22 2015 12:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
David Vitter loses to John Bel Edwards. -AP Yup we elected a dem governor in Louisiana.  I thought for sure diaper Dave was gonna win. I'm relieved that John Bel Edwards won, it's a testament to how ridiculous politics is that an adulterer representing a party that has run the state into the ground could even stand a chance against a newcomer from a pretty politically established family.
Republicans gave it to us. Republican jay Darren endorsed JBE and I've seen tons of JBE signs pop up next to Angelle signs in peoples yards after Angelle lost. Bizzaro world down here.
|
On November 22 2015 14:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 14:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people. You'll have to explain why using money as a universal token denoting value would fall out of fashion simply because people stopped buying bottled water and started filling up reusable bottles. I'm not some kind of anarchistic homesteader, I just buy store brand cereal. This is hardly revolutionary. Jesus. At no point would I go "shit guys, I'm only selling a few hours of my labour a week right now, the rest I'm selling to myself because I value the time hiking in the mountains over the goods I would buy with the money I would receive for my labour, I guess I better start carrying around a box of eggs to trade for things I want to have". There is a huge, huge step between "stop consuming as much" and "start trading milk for things" that you neglected to explain.
The problem is that you're completely and utterly failing to consider the actual impact of everyone adopting such a lifestyle.
You "just" buy store brand cereal? Where are you buying that from if high levels of consumerism is gone? Who's manufacturing all this cereal if people are only working 24 hours a month? Why are there "brands" of cereal when the money flow has become unsustainable for corporate competition?
Where is the wheat coming from to make this cereal when farmers only work 6 hours a week? Who is shipping it when truck drivers only drive 13 days every single year?
Your entire argument is so utterly lacking in any thought that it's astounding.
|
On November 22 2015 15:08 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 22 2015 12:31 heliusx wrote:On November 22 2015 12:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
David Vitter loses to John Bel Edwards. -AP Yup we elected a dem governor in Louisiana. I thought for sure diaper Dave was gonna win. I'm relieved that John Bel Edwards won, it's a testament to how ridiculous politics is that an adulterer representing a party that has run the state into the ground could even stand a chance against a newcomer from a pretty politically established family. Republicans gave it to us. Republican jay Darren endorsed JBE and I've seen tons of JBE signs pop up next to Angelle signs in peoples yards after Angelle lost. Bizzaro world down here.
I'm from New Orleans, though I live in Atlanta now (voted absentee though). It took a loooot to get Edwards elected (and he won by basically a landslide, geez). It could be argued that Vitter only looked like a strong candidate from far away. I mean, he had baggage and not many of his fellow Republicans liked him-- his two primary opponents, the governor at just the top of the list of Republicans he's got beef with. Edwards was a solid candidate, but honestly he was also the perfect counter to Vitter in a lot of ways which really helped his case. Not sure Mitch Landrieu could have pulled a win off.
|
United States43805 Posts
On November 22 2015 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 14:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 14:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people. You'll have to explain why using money as a universal token denoting value would fall out of fashion simply because people stopped buying bottled water and started filling up reusable bottles. I'm not some kind of anarchistic homesteader, I just buy store brand cereal. This is hardly revolutionary. Jesus. At no point would I go "shit guys, I'm only selling a few hours of my labour a week right now, the rest I'm selling to myself because I value the time hiking in the mountains over the goods I would buy with the money I would receive for my labour, I guess I better start carrying around a box of eggs to trade for things I want to have". There is a huge, huge step between "stop consuming as much" and "start trading milk for things" that you neglected to explain. The problem is that you're completely and utterly failing to consider the actual impact of everyone adopting such a lifestyle. You "just" buy store brand cereal? Where are you buying that from if high levels of consumerism is gone? Who's manufacturing all this cereal if people are only working 24 hours a month? Why are there "brands" of cereal when the money flow has become unsustainable for corporate competition? Where is the wheat coming from to make this cereal when farmers only work 6 hours a week? Who is shipping it when truck drivers only drive 13 days every single year? Your entire argument is so utterly lacking in any thought that it's astounding.
Fewer stores, smaller stores, lower costs. You act as if stores couldn't operate unless they sold 30 different variations of the same damn thing. Hell, even if we all barely bought anything all that would happen is markup would increase to compensate and a new equilibrium would form. Less shit being trucked from less far away. More truckers. More farmers. These are not unsolvable problems. An economy filled with people like me would view farming as a much more valuable activity which is good because it would give something for all the people who used to be advertising consultants etc to do. Honestly it's like you have no understanding of supply and demand. I demand things. Just not the same things as the market currently is. Supply and demand would not stop functioning if there was a change in demand.
Capitalism does not depend upon consumerism to survive.
|
On November 22 2015 15:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 14:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 14:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people. You'll have to explain why using money as a universal token denoting value would fall out of fashion simply because people stopped buying bottled water and started filling up reusable bottles. I'm not some kind of anarchistic homesteader, I just buy store brand cereal. This is hardly revolutionary. Jesus. At no point would I go "shit guys, I'm only selling a few hours of my labour a week right now, the rest I'm selling to myself because I value the time hiking in the mountains over the goods I would buy with the money I would receive for my labour, I guess I better start carrying around a box of eggs to trade for things I want to have". There is a huge, huge step between "stop consuming as much" and "start trading milk for things" that you neglected to explain. The problem is that you're completely and utterly failing to consider the actual impact of everyone adopting such a lifestyle. You "just" buy store brand cereal? Where are you buying that from if high levels of consumerism is gone? Who's manufacturing all this cereal if people are only working 24 hours a month? Why are there "brands" of cereal when the money flow has become unsustainable for corporate competition? Where is the wheat coming from to make this cereal when farmers only work 6 hours a week? Who is shipping it when truck drivers only drive 13 days every single year? Your entire argument is so utterly lacking in any thought that it's astounding. Fewer stores, smaller stores, lower costs. You act as if stores couldn't operate unless they sold 30 different variations of the same damn thing. Hell, even if we all barely bought anything all that would happen is markup would increase to compensate and a new equilibrium would form. Less shit being trucked from less far away. More truckers. More farmers. These are not unsolvable problems. An economy filled with people like me would view farming as a much more valuable activity which is good because it would give something for all the people who used to be advertising consultants etc to do. Honestly it's like you have no understanding of supply and demand. I demand things. Just not the same things as the market currently is. Supply and demand would not stop functioning if there was a change in demand. Capitalism does not depend upon consumerism to survive.
Supply and demand means absolutely nothing when you can't even meet the bare minimum labour hours required to produce, ship, manufacture, and sell the bare minimum food to feed everyone in the world, along with the infrastructure that you believe will still exist, like roads, buildings, facilities, electricity, water...
When does common sense even begin to kick in with this argument?
|
United States43805 Posts
On November 22 2015 15:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 15:18 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 14:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 14:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people. You'll have to explain why using money as a universal token denoting value would fall out of fashion simply because people stopped buying bottled water and started filling up reusable bottles. I'm not some kind of anarchistic homesteader, I just buy store brand cereal. This is hardly revolutionary. Jesus. At no point would I go "shit guys, I'm only selling a few hours of my labour a week right now, the rest I'm selling to myself because I value the time hiking in the mountains over the goods I would buy with the money I would receive for my labour, I guess I better start carrying around a box of eggs to trade for things I want to have". There is a huge, huge step between "stop consuming as much" and "start trading milk for things" that you neglected to explain. The problem is that you're completely and utterly failing to consider the actual impact of everyone adopting such a lifestyle. You "just" buy store brand cereal? Where are you buying that from if high levels of consumerism is gone? Who's manufacturing all this cereal if people are only working 24 hours a month? Why are there "brands" of cereal when the money flow has become unsustainable for corporate competition? Where is the wheat coming from to make this cereal when farmers only work 6 hours a week? Who is shipping it when truck drivers only drive 13 days every single year? Your entire argument is so utterly lacking in any thought that it's astounding. Fewer stores, smaller stores, lower costs. You act as if stores couldn't operate unless they sold 30 different variations of the same damn thing. Hell, even if we all barely bought anything all that would happen is markup would increase to compensate and a new equilibrium would form. Less shit being trucked from less far away. More truckers. More farmers. These are not unsolvable problems. An economy filled with people like me would view farming as a much more valuable activity which is good because it would give something for all the people who used to be advertising consultants etc to do. Honestly it's like you have no understanding of supply and demand. I demand things. Just not the same things as the market currently is. Supply and demand would not stop functioning if there was a change in demand. Capitalism does not depend upon consumerism to survive. Supply and demand means absolutely nothing when you can't even meet the bare minimum labour hours required to produce, ship, manufacture, and sell the bare minimum food to feed everyone in the world, along with the infrastructure that you believe will still exist, like roads, buildings, facilities, electricity, water... When does common sense even begin to kick in with this argument?
Why on earth would electricity disappear? Did the monster that ate all the currency eat it? I use electricity. I like electricity. I will happily pay for that. I'd pay more for it, I value it pretty highly. I'd work extra hours to get it if the hours I was working were not enough. I will happily work the hours needed and pay the price required for the stuff I want more than I want to not work.
You keep making these insane alarmist claims and say absolutely nothing to back them up. The bottled water market and the branded cereal market are not the only thing keeping the electricity market alive. Electricity is good independently of whether or not you want those.
|
I'm gonna go with KwarK on this one, I'm not sure what is being argued to the contrary...
I guess you could argue there's some sort limit where equilibrium gets thrown out of whack and can't be reached, but that seems like a pretty edge case. I guess one would be like the crash in the tulip speculation market where an industry suffers systemic collapse for one reason for another. In that particular case, the supply chain is relatively simple. In other more complex ones there would be a ripple effect, but equilibrium would be reached again. You can talk about the "stretchiness" of the supply webs I guess. I suppose human civilization collapsing would be the worst case, but that's kind of stretching the scenario.
|
On November 22 2015 15:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 15:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 15:18 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 14:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 14:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people. You'll have to explain why using money as a universal token denoting value would fall out of fashion simply because people stopped buying bottled water and started filling up reusable bottles. I'm not some kind of anarchistic homesteader, I just buy store brand cereal. This is hardly revolutionary. Jesus. At no point would I go "shit guys, I'm only selling a few hours of my labour a week right now, the rest I'm selling to myself because I value the time hiking in the mountains over the goods I would buy with the money I would receive for my labour, I guess I better start carrying around a box of eggs to trade for things I want to have". There is a huge, huge step between "stop consuming as much" and "start trading milk for things" that you neglected to explain. The problem is that you're completely and utterly failing to consider the actual impact of everyone adopting such a lifestyle. You "just" buy store brand cereal? Where are you buying that from if high levels of consumerism is gone? Who's manufacturing all this cereal if people are only working 24 hours a month? Why are there "brands" of cereal when the money flow has become unsustainable for corporate competition? Where is the wheat coming from to make this cereal when farmers only work 6 hours a week? Who is shipping it when truck drivers only drive 13 days every single year? Your entire argument is so utterly lacking in any thought that it's astounding. Fewer stores, smaller stores, lower costs. You act as if stores couldn't operate unless they sold 30 different variations of the same damn thing. Hell, even if we all barely bought anything all that would happen is markup would increase to compensate and a new equilibrium would form. Less shit being trucked from less far away. More truckers. More farmers. These are not unsolvable problems. An economy filled with people like me would view farming as a much more valuable activity which is good because it would give something for all the people who used to be advertising consultants etc to do. Honestly it's like you have no understanding of supply and demand. I demand things. Just not the same things as the market currently is. Supply and demand would not stop functioning if there was a change in demand. Capitalism does not depend upon consumerism to survive. Supply and demand means absolutely nothing when you can't even meet the bare minimum labour hours required to produce, ship, manufacture, and sell the bare minimum food to feed everyone in the world, along with the infrastructure that you believe will still exist, like roads, buildings, facilities, electricity, water... When does common sense even begin to kick in with this argument? Why on earth would electricity disappear? Did the monster that ate all the currency eat it? I use electricity. I like electricity. I will happily pay for that. I'd pay more for it, I value it pretty highly. I'd work extra hours to get it if the hours I was working were not enough. I will happily work the hours needed and pay the price required for the stuff I want more than I want to not work. You keep making these insane alarmist claims and say absolutely nothing to back them up. The bottled water market and the branded cereal market are not the only thing keeping the electricity market alive. Electricity is good independently of whether or not you want those.
?????????????????????????????????????????
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week.
If everyone was more like me in their reluctance to squander the hard earned yield of their labour for crap we would live in a world where the 10 hour work week would be the new standard for the minority of people who still had to work.
|
United States43805 Posts
?? is pretty much how I feel when I read your posts telling me that I'd have to start bartering if the work week ever dropped below 10 hours.
|
Most likely there's some confusion here; and this tangent isn't really relevant to the original point of discussion: housing prices and how to deal with them. I recommend dropping the tangent as it's going nowhere, and some people really seem to not understand it anyways.
|
On November 22 2015 15:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 15:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 15:18 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 14:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 14:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people. You'll have to explain why using money as a universal token denoting value would fall out of fashion simply because people stopped buying bottled water and started filling up reusable bottles. I'm not some kind of anarchistic homesteader, I just buy store brand cereal. This is hardly revolutionary. Jesus. At no point would I go "shit guys, I'm only selling a few hours of my labour a week right now, the rest I'm selling to myself because I value the time hiking in the mountains over the goods I would buy with the money I would receive for my labour, I guess I better start carrying around a box of eggs to trade for things I want to have". There is a huge, huge step between "stop consuming as much" and "start trading milk for things" that you neglected to explain. The problem is that you're completely and utterly failing to consider the actual impact of everyone adopting such a lifestyle. You "just" buy store brand cereal? Where are you buying that from if high levels of consumerism is gone? Who's manufacturing all this cereal if people are only working 24 hours a month? Why are there "brands" of cereal when the money flow has become unsustainable for corporate competition? Where is the wheat coming from to make this cereal when farmers only work 6 hours a week? Who is shipping it when truck drivers only drive 13 days every single year? Your entire argument is so utterly lacking in any thought that it's astounding. Fewer stores, smaller stores, lower costs. You act as if stores couldn't operate unless they sold 30 different variations of the same damn thing. Hell, even if we all barely bought anything all that would happen is markup would increase to compensate and a new equilibrium would form. Less shit being trucked from less far away. More truckers. More farmers. These are not unsolvable problems. An economy filled with people like me would view farming as a much more valuable activity which is good because it would give something for all the people who used to be advertising consultants etc to do. Honestly it's like you have no understanding of supply and demand. I demand things. Just not the same things as the market currently is. Supply and demand would not stop functioning if there was a change in demand. Capitalism does not depend upon consumerism to survive. Supply and demand means absolutely nothing when you can't even meet the bare minimum labour hours required to produce, ship, manufacture, and sell the bare minimum food to feed everyone in the world, along with the infrastructure that you believe will still exist, like roads, buildings, facilities, electricity, water... When does common sense even begin to kick in with this argument? Why on earth would electricity disappear? Did the monster that ate all the currency eat it? I use electricity. I like electricity. I will happily pay for that. I'd pay more for it, I value it pretty highly. I'd work extra hours to get it if the hours I was working were not enough. I will happily work the hours needed and pay the price required for the stuff I want more than I want to not work. You keep making these insane alarmist claims and say absolutely nothing to back them up. The bottled water market and the branded cereal market are not the only thing keeping the electricity market alive. Electricity is good independently of whether or not you want those.
No one is going to hire you Kwark because no will be investing capital into production. When capital stops circulating and mere exchange takes over, wage labor disappears.
It will be like going back in time to the 15th century. Except you will be worse off because you won't have a feudal work arrangement with a land lord and you won't have any public land to grow your food on.
|
United States43805 Posts
On November 22 2015 15:47 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 15:33 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 15:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 15:18 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 14:59 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2015 14:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The system of capitalism, supply and demand, price fluctuations and income changes, etc. entirely requires that enough people take part in the system for numbers to actually adjust and change to a meaningful degree.
If every individual in the world only worked as much as they needed to live to minimal standards, only purchased goods at the level they needed and at the cost they personally valued those goods, then that's falling into a barter system.
And for someone who complained across the last few pages about people's lifestyles and choices being subsidized, you don't seem to realize that 24 hours of work a month is not enough to produce the food you eat, the electricity you use (even at a minimal amount), the running water you get, the $3 cellphone service you can use. That kind of lifestyle is entirely subsidized by other people. You'll have to explain why using money as a universal token denoting value would fall out of fashion simply because people stopped buying bottled water and started filling up reusable bottles. I'm not some kind of anarchistic homesteader, I just buy store brand cereal. This is hardly revolutionary. Jesus. At no point would I go "shit guys, I'm only selling a few hours of my labour a week right now, the rest I'm selling to myself because I value the time hiking in the mountains over the goods I would buy with the money I would receive for my labour, I guess I better start carrying around a box of eggs to trade for things I want to have". There is a huge, huge step between "stop consuming as much" and "start trading milk for things" that you neglected to explain. The problem is that you're completely and utterly failing to consider the actual impact of everyone adopting such a lifestyle. You "just" buy store brand cereal? Where are you buying that from if high levels of consumerism is gone? Who's manufacturing all this cereal if people are only working 24 hours a month? Why are there "brands" of cereal when the money flow has become unsustainable for corporate competition? Where is the wheat coming from to make this cereal when farmers only work 6 hours a week? Who is shipping it when truck drivers only drive 13 days every single year? Your entire argument is so utterly lacking in any thought that it's astounding. Fewer stores, smaller stores, lower costs. You act as if stores couldn't operate unless they sold 30 different variations of the same damn thing. Hell, even if we all barely bought anything all that would happen is markup would increase to compensate and a new equilibrium would form. Less shit being trucked from less far away. More truckers. More farmers. These are not unsolvable problems. An economy filled with people like me would view farming as a much more valuable activity which is good because it would give something for all the people who used to be advertising consultants etc to do. Honestly it's like you have no understanding of supply and demand. I demand things. Just not the same things as the market currently is. Supply and demand would not stop functioning if there was a change in demand. Capitalism does not depend upon consumerism to survive. Supply and demand means absolutely nothing when you can't even meet the bare minimum labour hours required to produce, ship, manufacture, and sell the bare minimum food to feed everyone in the world, along with the infrastructure that you believe will still exist, like roads, buildings, facilities, electricity, water... When does common sense even begin to kick in with this argument? Why on earth would electricity disappear? Did the monster that ate all the currency eat it? I use electricity. I like electricity. I will happily pay for that. I'd pay more for it, I value it pretty highly. I'd work extra hours to get it if the hours I was working were not enough. I will happily work the hours needed and pay the price required for the stuff I want more than I want to not work. You keep making these insane alarmist claims and say absolutely nothing to back them up. The bottled water market and the branded cereal market are not the only thing keeping the electricity market alive. Electricity is good independently of whether or not you want those. No one is going to hire you Kwark because no will be investing capital into production. When capital stops circulating and mere exchange takes over, wage labor disappears.
Sure they would. People would still buy things. I still buy things. Hell, I work in education, my field would boom if people valued learning more. People would still buy cars and car companies would still invest in making better cars, it's simply that the focus would shift towards things like fuel efficiency and durability due to this market filled with people like me being content driving older cars to death. Cars built to save money over older models and to depreciate slowly would be the new norm. You seem to believe I don't participate in the economy. I do.
|
On November 22 2015 15:43 KwarK wrote:
?? is pretty much how I feel when I read your posts telling me that I'd have to start bartering if the work week ever dropped below 10 hours.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually realize that all the things you think you'll still have exist because people put in work so that they are provided.
For bare minimum living (food, shelter, water, electricity, health, transportation) there is a bare minimum amount of labour required to provide that. And no, that number is not just the total working hours of people directly in those industries now, because their working hours are driven down by efficiencies and services provided from several other industries. So you either have much higher working hours in the "necessity" sectors, or you supplement that with working hours in those peripheral industries.
And then you want luxuries, and even avoiding the exorbitant consumerism, that's still a very large increase in work hours just from selling flour to selling cereal. You need all the people to provide the luxuries, and then the increase in the previous sectors to provide even more, like food variety, more electricity, more infrastructure and facilities.
And that's not even going into the other details you don't seem to realize, like the fact that your 6-hour work week lifestyle is based heavily on labour provided by other countries that work far more than 40-50 hour work weeks, and that there are extreme inefficiencies in having a worker in 6 hours a week (or, I suppose, 2 months of a year at 40 hours a week).
Really, what comes down to is you saying that if 6.3 billion people no longer did any work for the rest of their lives, then the entire world would still have a 1950's lifestyle.
|
United States43805 Posts
On November 22 2015 16:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 15:43 KwarK wrote:
?? is pretty much how I feel when I read your posts telling me that I'd have to start bartering if the work week ever dropped below 10 hours. I'm trying to figure out if you actually realize that all the things you think you'll still have exist because people put in work so that they are provided. For bare minimum living (food, shelter, water, electricity, health, transportation) there is a bare minimum amount of labour required to provide that. And no, that number is not just the total working hours of people directly in those industries now, because their working hours are driven down by efficiencies and services provided from several other industries. So you either have much higher working hours in the "necessity" sectors, or you supplement that with working hours in those peripheral industries. And then you want luxuries, and even avoiding the exorbitant consumerism, that's still a very large increase in work hours just from selling flour to selling cereal. You need all the people to provide the luxuries, and then the increase in the previous sectors to provide even more, like food variety, more electricity, more infrastructure and facilities. And that's not even going into the other details you don't seem to realize, like the fact that your 6-hour work week lifestyle is based heavily on labour provided by other countries that work far more than 40-50 hour work weeks, and that there are extreme inefficiencies in having a worker in 6 hours a week (or, I suppose, 2 months of a year at 40 hours a week). Really, what comes down to is you saying that if 6.3 billion people no longer did any work for the rest of their lives, then the entire world would still have a 1950's lifestyle.
You're combining several of my posts on different subjects.
The first handful of hours you work in the week pay for the necessities, that's simply checking the maths. Cost of necessities divided by hourly wage. The hours you work beyond that are discretionary, you choose to exchange additional labour for additional money to get additional luxuries. That one can't really be disputed. Even at minimum wage you can still afford a room in a shared house and basic foodstuffs. I mentioned the 50s not because I believe we should invest in time travel to go back to a time when whites were whites and blacks were coloureds but to give a reference point regarding what a necessity is. A necessity is not living in a house where bathrooms outnumber people, it's living in a house where you have a bed. I'm not advocating the 50s, it was used to give a basis of comparison to understand how much of what we experience these days are luxuries.
I also believe that most people are really bad at allocating their time and money and have huge conflicts between the things they would say they valued if asked and the way they actually spend. Capitalism would survive the death of fashion and the death of brand name versions of products like salt or water. It would survive people choosing to sell more of their labour to themselves. Nobody would start bartering. Staying at home is just another luxury. I might as well one up your position and tell you that the existence of the weekend will inevitably cause bartering and that only the 60 hour work week can keep capitalism going. We already sacrifice the potential earnings of the weekend in exchange for the leisure time, it wouldn't kill the economy to cut back on luxury goods a little and add a third day to the weekend any more than the first two days killed the economy.
|
What's the Kwark theory of the business cycle?
|
On November 22 2015 16:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 15:43 KwarK wrote:
?? is pretty much how I feel when I read your posts telling me that I'd have to start bartering if the work week ever dropped below 10 hours. I'm trying to figure out if you actually realize that all the things you think you'll still have exist because people put in work so that they are provided. For bare minimum living (food, shelter, water, electricity, health, transportation) there is a bare minimum amount of labour required to provide that. And no, that number is not just the total working hours of people directly in those industries now, because their working hours are driven down by efficiencies and services provided from several other industries. So you either have much higher working hours in the "necessity" sectors, or you supplement that with working hours in those peripheral industries. And then you want luxuries, and even avoiding the exorbitant consumerism, that's still a very large increase in work hours just from selling flour to selling cereal. You need all the people to provide the luxuries, and then the increase in the previous sectors to provide even more, like food variety, more electricity, more infrastructure and facilities. And that's not even going into the other details you don't seem to realize, like the fact that your 6-hour work week lifestyle is based heavily on labour provided by other countries that work far more than 40-50 hour work weeks, and that there are extreme inefficiencies in having a worker in 6 hours a week (or, I suppose, 2 months of a year at 40 hours a week). Really, what comes down to is you saying that if 6.3 billion people no longer did any work for the rest of their lives, then the entire world would still have a 1950's lifestyle.
Well, it is very close to the truth. Less than 1% of the population in America are farmers, and we produce an excess of the requisite food. There are similarly low, or lower, percentages of the populace employed in delivery of water, electricity, etc. So, if everyone because super lazy Kwark hypotheticals it might not work out, but easily a 10 hour work week for these super lazy fellows would more than provide what he is talking about.
|
The fact that only a few people can provide the Kwarkian consumer's demand is precisely the problem, because that means that there is only a need for a few workers. When there's only a need for a few workers to satisfy the Kwarkian aggregate demand, it means that there's no reason for any capitalist to invest in enough jobs to supply the, albeit low, wages that Kwark says he needs to reproduce himself. So you are going to have a massive army of surplus labor, jobless and destitute. But hey steady-state zero growth capitalism is still thriving according to Kwark.
|
United States43805 Posts
On November 22 2015 16:38 IgnE wrote:
The fact that only a few people can provide the Kwarkian consumer's demand is precisely the problem, because that means that there is only a need for a few workers. When there's only a need for a few workers to satisfy the Kwarkian aggregate demand, it means that there's no reason for any capitalist to invest in enough jobs to supply the, albeit low, wages that Kwark says he needs to reproduce himself. So you are going to have a massive army of surplus labor, jobless and destitute. But hey steady-state zero growth capitalism is still thriving according to Kwark.
Or many workers each working fewer hours. Two working parents dropping to one full time, one part time. There would be lower productivity but also lower consumption, the balance would remain.
Let's look at the opposite. You seem to believe that levels of labour and consumption below current levels would trigger a financial meltdown. And yet we are already far below the maximum level of labour and consumption. Humans could easily work 60 hour weeks and then use the additional income to prop up wasteful consumption. If we assume that as a baseline then we're already operating at only 66% with our 40 hour work week with another 33% devoted to unproductive leisure. You're telling me that if we were to drop to 60% work, 40% leisure, a work week of 36 hours rather than 40, the economy would implode? Or 50% work with a 30 hour work week?
Your argument is that this arbitrary mix of work and leisure is a magical number that we dare not drop below without disastrous consequences. A new Federal holiday would trigger the end times. It's nonsense. If your argument had any merit it would already be the end times, weekends already exist, the labourers already lower their consumption in the name of additional leisure. Turns out we survived.
|
On November 22 2015 16:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 16:38 IgnE wrote:
The fact that only a few people can provide the Kwarkian consumer's demand is precisely the problem, because that means that there is only a need for a few workers. When there's only a need for a few workers to satisfy the Kwarkian aggregate demand, it means that there's no reason for any capitalist to invest in enough jobs to supply the, albeit low, wages that Kwark says he needs to reproduce himself. So you are going to have a massive army of surplus labor, jobless and destitute. But hey steady-state zero growth capitalism is still thriving according to Kwark. Or many workers each working fewer hours. Two working parents dropping to one full time, one part time. There would be lower productivity but also lower consumption, the balance would remain. Let's look at the opposite. You seem to believe that levels of labour and consumption below current levels would trigger a financial meltdown. And yet we are already far below the maximum level of labour and consumption. Humans could easily work 60 hour weeks and then use the additional income to prop up wasteful consumption. If we assume that as a baseline then we're already operating at only 66% with our 40 hour work week with another 33% devoted to unproductive leisure. You're telling me that if we were to drop to 60% work, 40% leisure, a work week of 36 hours rather than 40, the economy would implode? Or 50% work with a 30 hour work week? Your argument is that this arbitrary mix of work and leisure is a magical number that we dare not drop below without disastrous consequences. A new Federal holiday would trigger the end times. It's nonsense. If your argument had any merit it would already be the end times, weekends already exist, the labourers already lower their consumption in the name of additional leisure. Turns out we survived.
What are you smoking because I want some. Next you are going to tell me that people who are unemployed could easily be working 60 hours a week if they wanted to. Is this some hive mind of yours that directs everyone into Nash equilibrium points for the economy? It's like you are high on doing mass balances across an equals sign.
I don't know if we would implode with a 36 hour work week. But it seems very likely we would implode if everyone in the world decided to work no more than 20 hours.
|
On November 22 2015 16:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 16:38 IgnE wrote:
The fact that only a few people can provide the Kwarkian consumer's demand is precisely the problem, because that means that there is only a need for a few workers. When there's only a need for a few workers to satisfy the Kwarkian aggregate demand, it means that there's no reason for any capitalist to invest in enough jobs to supply the, albeit low, wages that Kwark says he needs to reproduce himself. So you are going to have a massive army of surplus labor, jobless and destitute. But hey steady-state zero growth capitalism is still thriving according to Kwark. Or many workers each working fewer hours. Two working parents dropping to one full time, one part time. There would be lower productivity but also lower consumption, the balance would remain. Let's look at the opposite. You seem to believe that levels of labour and consumption below current levels would trigger a financial meltdown. And yet we are already far below the maximum level of labour and consumption. Humans could easily work 60 hour weeks and then use the additional income to prop up wasteful consumption. If we assume that as a baseline then we're already operating at only 66% with our 40 hour work week with another 33% devoted to unproductive leisure. You're telling me that if we were to drop to 60% work, 40% leisure, a work week of 36 hours rather than 40, the economy would implode? Or 50% work with a 30 hour work week? Your argument is that this arbitrary mix of work and leisure is a magical number that we dare not drop below without disastrous consequences. A new Federal holiday would trigger the end times. It's nonsense. If your argument had any merit it would already be the end times, weekends already exist, the labourers already lower their consumption in the name of additional leisure. Turns out we survived.
Again, for someone who started this whole thing because he said he didn't like subsidizing other people's lifestyles, it's amazing that you don't realize how heavily subsidized your lifestyle is by the rest of the world...
I mean, everyone in the United States could probably stop working entirely and live comfortably (but not exorbitantly) off some vacuous financial circulation using existing wealth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
