|
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. |
United States43805 Posts
On November 22 2015 17:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 16:58 KwarK wrote: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.
The Chinese don't make cheap goods to do me a favour. They make goods in line with the value of their labour. While there is an uneven exchange in manhours there is not an uneven exchange in value. My labour is valued by the same market that values theirs, I'm just worth more.
Trade is not a subsidy. If the Chinese want to stop making me goods then they can and I'll simply pay someone else to do it.
|
On November 22 2015 17:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 17:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 16:58 KwarK wrote: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. The Chinese don't make cheap goods to do me a favour. They make goods in line with the value of their labour. While there is an uneven exchange in manhours there is not an uneven exchange in value. My labour is valued by the same market that values theirs, I'm just worth more. Trade is not a subsidy. If the Chinese want to stop making me goods then they can and I'll simply pay someone else to do it.
Because this country has passed pesky laws that say you can't hire people to work 80 hrs a week for ~$1/hr. The reason people earn close to a living isn't because of the market it's because of the government.
Given the market having free reign, we'd have millions of "delusional share croppers" who "are thinking they deserve the freedom given to those who aren't bound to slave wages for survival." as if they earned it.
You have a point about living within one's means, but just give up on the 6 hour work week because that was BS to start with.
|
On November 22 2015 17:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 17:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2015 16:58 KwarK wrote: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. The Chinese don't make cheap goods to do me a favour. They make goods in line with the value of their labour. While there is an uneven exchange in manhours there is not an uneven exchange in value. My labour is valued by the same market that values theirs, I'm just worth more. Trade is not a subsidy. If the Chinese want to stop making me goods then they can and I'll simply pay someone else to do it.
Okay, cool, so now we're down from "everyone in the world could be like my hypothetical" to "10% of the world could be like this as long as there is the other 90% to prop it up".
So much fun...
|
United States43805 Posts
You're putting words in my mouth. At what point did I argue that Chinese workers or Bangladeshi children sewing clothes work hard because they're desperate to buy newer iphones? This entire time you've been arguing with a straw man. You say something dumb like tap water leads to bartering, I call you out on it and you just say something else dumb. This isn't a conversation, this is me educating you in my free time. QQing out.
|
On November 22 2015 17:57 KwarK wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth. At what point did I argue that Chinese workers or Bangladeshi children sewing clothes work hard because they're desperate to buy newer iphones? This entire time you've been arguing with a straw man. You say something dumb like tap water leads to bartering, I call you out on it and you just say something else dumb. This isn't a conversation, this is me educating you in my free time. QQing out.
I said bartering would be the system because you started at some absurd hypothetical where the entire world worked 6 hours a week unless they felt like doing more.
But really, the whole discussion is about some inanity where living and affordability is only about people being extreme consumerists. And now you've clawed your point so far back that you're openly admitting that lowering living expectations and moving to cheaper markets to live comfortable is not, in fact, something that everyone can do.
Not that you'd admit it, of course...
|
United States43805 Posts
On November 22 2015 18:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2015 17:57 KwarK wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth. At what point did I argue that Chinese workers or Bangladeshi children sewing clothes work hard because they're desperate to buy newer iphones? This entire time you've been arguing with a straw man. You say something dumb like tap water leads to bartering, I call you out on it and you just say something else dumb. This isn't a conversation, this is me educating you in my free time. QQing out. I said bartering would be the system because you started at some absurd hypothetical where the entire world worked 6 hours a week unless they felt like doing more.
No, that's a straw man you made up. I explained myself over and over, you never bothered reading it.
|
Between current overproduction and increasing levels of automation the world could very much survive a dramatic cut in working hours.
The reason we don't is part cheap labor costs and part social unrest if we build cereal factories that employ 10 part time technicians to repair the equipment and no one else.
(ofcourse not all jobs are easily automated but enough are to render most of the work force obsolete)
|
Kwark's point doesn't necessarily entail further automation though, or any technological change for that matter.
I think his thought experiment is equivalent to "imagine if an alien virus made it so working more than 6 hours a week led to death. After an obvious transition period, everything would be back to normal, except that average living standards would be that of the 1930s".
|
Uhh... I'm not sure if yall are misreading KwarK's argument or what. He's not arguing in favor of a 6 hour work week, just stating that the first 6 hours of work each week at median wage covers necessities and that marginal hours past that go towards what can be considered unnecessaries, if not luxury. You can question the exact assumptions and math behind that but the general concept seems solid.
To be lazy, let's say median wage is 52K. Concerning that hourly to a 6 hour work week, you get $150 a week, which is $600 monthly and $7200 annually. At that point, you don't owe tax and you get pretty much free insurance, so you're gucci on that end. $600/mo can definitely cover a single person's living expenses, albeit with caveats like the individual won't really be contributing anything worthwhile to savings. If a guy only works 6 hours, he/she must value leisure or whatever else non-labor activity more than an incremental hour of work.
|
On November 23 2015 00:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
Uhh... I'm not sure if yall are misreading KwarK's argument or what. He's not arguing in favor of a 6 hour work week, just stating that the first 6 hours of work each week at median wage covers necessities and that marginal hours past that go towards what can be considered unnecessaries, if not luxury. You can question the exact assumptions and math behind that but the general concept seems solid.
To be lazy, let's say median wage is 52K. Concerning that hourly to a 6 hour work week, you get $150 a week, which is $600 monthly and $7200 annually. At that point, you don't owe tax and you get pretty much free insurance, so you're gucci on that end. $600/mo can definitely cover a single person's living expenses, albeit with caveats like the individual won't really be contributing anything worthwhile to savings. If a guy only works 6 hours, he/she must value leisure or whatever else non-labor activity more than an incremental hour of work.
And again, if the argument was something like "middle to upper class America only needs to work 6 hours a week for necessities" there might be a point. Except he used it as an argument against lower income people being priced out of living expenses.
Same goes to the median wage argument. Sure, if everyone was earning the median wage, and was living in the lowest living expense regions, you don't need much for necessities. But that's a logical impossibility. Everyone could earn the median wage...but not in a capitalist system. And not everyone can live in the lowest living expense areas...because they're statistically the outliers and not average.
|
Hillary vs Marco
Those will be fun debates to watch!
I assume we can trust Oddschecker for the odds? They have been wrong about Jeb! already though
|
Barack Obama has moved to ensure that the Paris attacks do not sabotage a crucial climate change summit in the city next week, urging his fellow leaders to attend and strike a new deal on global warming.
The US president spoke out amid concerns that security fears in Paris coupled with an understandable deflection of French attention away from the imminent two-week summit might undermine chances for a historic agreement to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.
“I think it’s absolutely vital for every country, every leader, to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business,” Obama said.
He added that world leaders had to show the murderous adversaries who killed at least 130 people “that we’re not afraid”. And the first chance to do that is next Monday, when the Paris climate change talks, known as COP21, start.
The Paris attacks have cast a deep shadow over COP21 – demonstrations have been banned and security has been stepped up – though none of the 130-plus heads of state and government due to attend has yet pulled out.
France has made a huge play of preparing for the summit, which is supposed to achieve a new global deal to curb emissions from 2020 and prevent the planet from catastrophic overheating. But in the wake of the 13 November attacks, there have been concerns that the French political leadership, and president François Hollande in particular, might have other things on their mind.
Privately, French officials insist they are determined not to let their agenda be set by terrorists. And some observers are hoping that the threat might galvanisethe talks to greater solidarity and urgency.
Source
|
On November 23 2015 00:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
Uhh... I'm not sure if yall are misreading KwarK's argument or what. He's not arguing in favor of a 6 hour work week, just stating that the first 6 hours of work each week at median wage covers necessities and that marginal hours past that go towards what can be considered unnecessaries, if not luxury. You can question the exact assumptions and math behind that but the general concept seems solid.
To be lazy, let's say median wage is 52K. Concerning that hourly to a 6 hour work week, you get $150 a week, which is $600 monthly and $7200 annually. At that point, you don't owe tax and you get pretty much free insurance, so you're gucci on that end. $600/mo can definitely cover a single person's living expenses, albeit with caveats like the individual won't really be contributing anything worthwhile to savings. If a guy only works 6 hours, he/she must value leisure or whatever else non-labor activity more than an incremental hour of work.
Except the Median wage is actually around $26,700, $52k is Median household income which includes 2 or more wages. But Kwark cleared up he was kind of speaking about an even smaller subset of people who would have 2 median wages at their disposal.
That people could survive on less is a given, the problem arose when he tried to roll that into an argument about gentrification, and general living and housing conditions.
Of course this all presupposes that wages accurately reflect the value of the labor which has been becoming less true as there are less active forces to balance out wage payers who are extracting ever larger shares of the wealth generated by labor. That and it is mostly meaningless to the 10's of millions of workers still making under $10/hr. Yoav also hit some important points about stuff that would seem to be a luxury (especially by some bygone era's metric) but are practical necessities in a modern world.
|
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump would not rule out making a run for president as an independent despite signing a pledge over the summer saying he would support the eventual GOP nominee instead of running a third-party bid.
“I’m going to have to see what happens. I will see what happens. I have to be treated fairly,” Trump said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” when asked about a new guerrilla effort by operatives within the Republican Party to derail Trump’s candidacy. “When I did this, I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want to do is [have] a level playing field."
Trump has previously cited "fairness" as a reason he would run a third-party bid. In September, when he signed the pledge, he said he gained nothing besides "assurance that I’ll be treated fairly.”
Trump pointed out that he’s currently content with his position in the polls.
“I’m leading every poll by a lot,” Trump said. “It’s not even a little bit anymore -- it’s a lot.”
Trump also targeted Hillary Clinton, a potential rival in the general election, saying she didn't "have the strength or the stamina" to be president.
"She's not a strong enough person to be president," he said.
Source
|
Trump leads Carson 32% to 22%, in a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC News.
And the real estate mogul leads the retired neurosurgeon 28% to 18% in a new Fox News poll.
...
In the Washington Post/ABC News poll, Rubio is in third at 11%, followed by Cruz at 8%, Bush at 6% and former tech CEO Carly Fiorina at 4%. In the Fox News poll, Rubio and Cruz are tied at 14% and Bush has 5%.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-leads-ben-carson-two-polls-election-2016/
Trump has been sent from providence. Go to bed Ben.
|
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is proposing a new tax break for those caring for elderly or disabled family members.
At a campaign event in Iowa today, she will outline a plan to offer a $6,000 tax credit toward costs associated with providing long-term care to aging parents and grandparents, a campaign aide said.
She will also propose expanding Social Security benefits for caregivers, saying many see their benefits reduced when they must take time off from work to care for ailing relatives. That’s because Social Security benefits are based on their top 35 years of annual earnings. The plan would provide a credit toward the benefits for caregivers who are out of the workforce.
"As baby boomers age, more and more families will need to provide care for or will need care from loved ones,” her campaign said. “Many family members, most often spouses and adult daughters, spend time out of the workforce, cut back on hours, or use personal days, vacation, and family time to provide needed care."
Another element of the plan would expand respite care, which provides substitute health care when the main caregiver needs a break from his or her duties. Clinton wants to invest $100 million in the initiative over 10 years. She also said she would launch a program to improve the wages of professional child care and health care workers.
Source
|
On November 23 2015 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2015 00:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
Uhh... I'm not sure if yall are misreading KwarK's argument or what. He's not arguing in favor of a 6 hour work week, just stating that the first 6 hours of work each week at median wage covers necessities and that marginal hours past that go towards what can be considered unnecessaries, if not luxury. You can question the exact assumptions and math behind that but the general concept seems solid.
To be lazy, let's say median wage is 52K. Concerning that hourly to a 6 hour work week, you get $150 a week, which is $600 monthly and $7200 annually. At that point, you don't owe tax and you get pretty much free insurance, so you're gucci on that end. $600/mo can definitely cover a single person's living expenses, albeit with caveats like the individual won't really be contributing anything worthwhile to savings. If a guy only works 6 hours, he/she must value leisure or whatever else non-labor activity more than an incremental hour of work.
Except the Median wage is actually around $26,700, $52k is Median household income which includes 2 or more wages. But Kwark cleared up he was kind of speaking about an even smaller subset of people who would have 2 median wages at their disposal. That people could survive on less is a given, the problem arose when he tried to roll that into an argument about gentrification, and general living and housing conditions. Of course this all presupposes that wages accurately reflect the value of the labor which has been becoming less true as there are less active forces to balance out wage payers who are extracting ever larger shares of the wealth generated by labor. That and it is mostly meaningless to the 10's of millions of workers still making under $10/hr. Yoav also hit some important points about stuff that would seem to be a luxury (especially by some bygone era's metric) but are practical necessities in a modern world.
Kwark would also (probably) argue that living alone is a luxury. Which is historically correct.
|
There are many hidden assumptions underlying the model Kwark is using (no past debt, no parents under individual's care, rapid and safe mobility to/from work, no children, ability to swap location of residence instantaneously with no consequences, ability to navigate the financial system, no healthcare costs, and so on) that it's pretty much pointless to actually apply it to real people anyway. It's just a thought experiment, nothing more.
+ Show Spoiler +Kinda like capitalism in general, it's a soulless emotionless calculus that assumes people are soulless and emotionless.
It's rationally correct, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we should tell people it's what they "should" be doing because there are an insane number of people that violate those assumptions. Not everyone making 25K annual salary is "doing it wrong" if they're struggling to get by.
|
Posted on Donald Trump's twitter. Monday's going to be good (and his poll will rise).
|
Does this mean that police officers are neither black nor white?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
