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.
Rick Santorum said Thursday that Nelson Mandela had fought against "some great injustice" -- apartheid -- just as Republicans are fighting against the great injustice of Obamacare.
“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives -- and Obamacare is front and center in that,” Santorum said Thursday in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
O'Reilly had opened the conversation by saying that, though Mandela was a "communist," he was still "a great man. What he did for his people was stunning," continuing that he was still able to respect him despite their different political views. O'Reilly then asked Santorum why the Republican Party wasn't able to resolve its ideological differences with the same respect.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that, and that's the reason he's mourned today," Santorum said. "But you're right, what he was advocating for wasn't necessarily the right answer."
How the hell does this kind of disrespect even get dreamt up. Doesn't he at least have some staff that can tell him that it is a terrible idea?
Mandela, an all around respected man, and an inspiration for most of the world, dies. Some lowlife politician tries to stand in his shadow by drawing an incredibly stupid simile. So incredibly tasteless.
Remember most of these guys who say junk like that actually believe it.
Rick Santorum said Thursday that Nelson Mandela had fought against "some great injustice" -- apartheid -- just as Republicans are fighting against the great injustice of Obamacare.
“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives -- and Obamacare is front and center in that,” Santorum said Thursday in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
O'Reilly had opened the conversation by saying that, though Mandela was a "communist," he was still "a great man. What he did for his people was stunning," continuing that he was still able to respect him despite their different political views. O'Reilly then asked Santorum why the Republican Party wasn't able to resolve its ideological differences with the same respect.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that, and that's the reason he's mourned today," Santorum said. "But you're right, what he was advocating for wasn't necessarily the right answer."
How the hell does this kind of disrespect even get dreamt up. Doesn't he at least have some staff that can tell him that it is a terrible idea?
Mandela, an all around respected man, and an inspiration for most of the world, dies. Some lowlife politician tries to stand in his shadow by drawing an incredibly stupid simile. So incredibly tasteless.
Simple decency, unfortunately, has become underrated in this country.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
What's the subsistence level amount? $2/day?
What about all the work that shows an increase in minimum wages will decrease employment? Economists are pretty evenly split on the topic, and the conventional policy wisdom is to increase the minimum when the economy is strong and not when the economy is weak.
No the subsistance level is cultural - as I said since Adam Smith (he counted beer consumption as a necessity for English workers, and not for French). The loss of the subsides, for some population, would be such a huge loss of income that it would most likely end up in discussions, but well no one can be sure about it it's true. I can't believe 50 millions + people would agree on losing a third of their income.
Your conventional policy wisdom is absolutly wrong. Again, you show your own ignorance by refusing to study actual economy in all its contradictions and not just the main "branch". Economists today actually even question the qualities of having a rigid labor market in a situation of crisis. Why would you need to increase minimum wage when the economy is strong ? And for god sake, why would you do the dumb thing to actually lower minimum wage in situation of crisis, it's the best way to push the country further into the crisis considering "around 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers" (source : http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm). Economists are split, between retards who believe in fairy tails and actual economists, it's true tho.
Could you clarify your position? You previously said that if wage subsidies were removed wages would rise. Now you are saying that a loss of wage subsidies would result in a loss of income.
Increasing the min wage during a strong economy would have an effect because economic growth isn't naturally distributed evenly.
Most people who earn a hourly wage don't earn the minimum wage...
In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Yes but then expand that number to account for a series of increasing intervals, say 7.25-8.50-9.75-11.00-12.25, and complicate your perspective a bit, and then bam, it hits you. The minimum wage line plays an integral role in determining lower quartile hourly wage distributions, and an influential one on up.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays.
and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again?
The U.S. Department of Education risks becoming a “lapdog” as a result of recent actions toward financial companies such as Sallie Mae, Sen. Elizabeth Warren charged Thursday.
The Massachusetts Democrat said she was “deeply concerned” by a Huffington Post report that the Education Department had recently told Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest handler of student loans, that it intended to renew its federal contract to collect payments on federal student loans, despite pending investigations by at least three other federal agencies over allegations the company violated borrowers’ rights.
Warren, a member of the Senate banking and education committees, also said it was “shocking” that the department had not yet recovered some $22 million in allegedly improper payments made to Sallie Mae despite a 2009 recommendation from the department’s inspector general that it recover the debt.
“The Department of Education needs to be aggressive in watching out for students, not for profit-making loan servicers,” Warren said. “They’re there for our students, not to help loan servicers make a profit.”
The criticism comes as Education Secretary Arne Duncan battles perceptions that his department is too soft on the companies it pays to collect on federal student debt, while these companies are alleged to be harming borrowers and violating federal rules. Warren has been among his most outspoken critics, and on Sept. 19 she wrote him a letter demanding answers.
“The whole point of the letter was to make sure the Education Department is making it a priority to review its own contracts with an eye toward how Sallie Mae and others are executing on their responsibilities,” Warren said. “That’s what I’m trying to do.”
Stephen Spector, Education Department spokesman, said Thursday the department had not yet responded to Warren’s letter.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays.
and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again?
It relates to the probability of seeing armed insurrection or a revolution in modern developed countries based on relative poverty. I think it's a ridiculous argument and "pay more taxes or I'll rob you" is a really bad direction to approach inequality.
As part of an unfolding administrative effort to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, President Barack Obama announced an executive order Thursday that would nearly triple the share of energy federal agencies obtain from renewable sources.
To “promote energy security, combat climate change, protect the interests of taxpayers, and safeguard the health of our environment, the federal government must lead by example,” declared a memorandum from the president announcing the order.
The government currently obtains more than 7 percent of its energy from renewable sources, according to a fact sheet distributed by the White House, but the president said recent increases in domestic energy production make a 20 percent target feasible by 2020. The higher target, the White House argued, would “reduce pollution in our communities, promote American energy independence, and support homegrown energy produced by American workers.”
It’s the latest in a series of piecemeal unilateral steps Obama’s administration has taken to make some regulatory headway against the growing threat of climate change. In June, the administration announced a plan to cap the carbon emissions from new and existing power plants.
In August 2012, the administration finalized new vehicle fuel standards that would require cars and light-duty trucks to average 54.5 miles per gallon by model year 2025.
This is hilarious considering the US Government is the #1 polluter in the world. Beyond that, the Federal Government allows pollution ranges for certain interests which violate folks property rights. These pollution privileges are an affront. I'm tired of the hypocrisy and idiocy of the Government, it's mouthpieces, and propaganda centers aka Government-schools. This is brought to you by the way by the same institution which irradiated Nagasaki and Hiroshima, oh and much of Nevada, a bunch of pacific islands, etc.
The US is the biggest polluter in the world, therefore any initiative, like the one you quoted, is "hilarious"? Shouldn't you be ecstatic that the US is at least taking measures to reduce the pollution... and maybe it will, at some point, even no longer be the #1 polluter in the world?
And no clue what dragging the 2nd world war into this has to do with anything, but I am sure you have a credible link between the Manhattan project and the greenhouse effect, right?
Because it's a meaningless political gesture, meant to stir the hearts of fools. If he was at all serious he would attempt to curb the pollution of the Armed Forces, especially the Navy and CG who dump all their waste directly into the ocean. He would also make an attempt towards Congress to persuade them to repeal these privileges given to special interests re: pollution (ie. violation of another's property rights), but he didn't, instead he made politically motivated purchases to line his interests pocket (re: Solyndra type contracts again), that has negligible if any affect on net pollution, especially considering the pollution that is created to make these cars which are in many cases much worse than the fossil fuel alternative (diesel). Electric car batteries are MUCH worse for the environment than a combustion engine ever could dream to be.
"Electric car batteries are MUCH worse for the environment than a combustion engine ever could dream to be. "
Do you have any evidence to back up this sorry talking point? I hear it trotted out by wingnuts on a regular basis but never see a cite. GM recycles the Li-ion battery packs, as do most other manufacturers.
On December 07 2013 12:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote: "Electric car batteries are MUCH worse for the environment than a combustion engine ever could dream to be. "
Do you have any evidence to back up this sorry talking point? I hear it trotted out by wingnuts on a regular basis but never see a cite. GM recycles the Li-ion battery packs, as do most other manufacturers.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays.
and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again?
It relates to the probability of seeing armed insurrection or a revolution in modern developed countries based on relative poverty. I think it's a ridiculous argument and "pay more taxes or I'll rob you" is a really bad direction to approach inequality.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. "Hey why were you born with all this wealth while we are starving. You need to give us some." It's more ridiculous to think that the wealthy are going to do shit all about redistribution except accumulate more. But our precious Constitution and society! What about the sanctity of private property?
On December 07 2013 14:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is making the rounds and coincides with NASA telling Planetary scientists they might need to find new JObs due to budget cuts and the sequester:
On December 07 2013 14:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is making the rounds and coincides with NASA telling Planetary scientists they might need to find new JObs due to budget cuts and the sequester:
I just love Bill Nye. I don't care much about his message one way or the other. I just like seeing him around.
If he had a political show with that intro music from back in the day, I'd probably watch it. Nostalgia drive wouldn't wear off for a while, though his push for greater NASA exploration funding is more aligned with more goals in long term not short term.
On December 06 2013 07:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays.
and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again?
It relates to the probability of seeing armed insurrection or a revolution in modern developed countries based on relative poverty. I think it's a ridiculous argument and "pay more taxes or I'll rob you" is a really bad direction to approach inequality.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. "Hey why were you born with all this wealth while we are starving. You need to give us some." It's more ridiculous to think that the wealthy are going to do shit all about redistribution except accumulate more. But our precious Constitution and society! What about the sanctity of private property?
I suppose if you knew some of our history you might actually know what the framers thought about these things! I don't suspect you do, however. A key phrase is "tyranny of the majority."
At most you know a singular quote (or two) from Madison that proves everything is "for the rich."
On December 06 2013 07:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays.
and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again?
It relates to the probability of seeing armed insurrection or a revolution in modern developed countries based on relative poverty. I think it's a ridiculous argument and "pay more taxes or I'll rob you" is a really bad direction to approach inequality.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. "Hey why were you born with all this wealth while we are starving. You need to give us some." It's more ridiculous to think that the wealthy are going to do shit all about redistribution except accumulate more. But our precious Constitution and society! What about the sanctity of private property?
As you noted, this is the difference between the modern era and past times like the Great Depression or the Neolithic Era. People AREN'T starving. The United States is NOT Les Miserables, where the choice is steal or starve, degradation or depravity.
On December 07 2013 14:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is making the rounds and coincides with NASA telling Planetary scientists they might need to find new JObs due to budget cuts and the sequester:
Nye doesn't note that NASA bricked the Deep Impact probe in September, which was a high-profile failure as far as Washington goes. Even though it had already long extended its original mission, explaining how they lost a $330 million spacecraft to a bad update is still not easy.
But overall, President Obama has shown little interest in space science and much more in getting medical research results, especially on cancer. If you want more NASA funding, you actually want Republicans to do better in elections. They eat that stuff up.
On December 06 2013 07:29 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays.
and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again?
It relates to the probability of seeing armed insurrection or a revolution in modern developed countries based on relative poverty. I think it's a ridiculous argument and "pay more taxes or I'll rob you" is a really bad direction to approach inequality.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. "Hey why were you born with all this wealth while we are starving. You need to give us some." It's more ridiculous to think that the wealthy are going to do shit all about redistribution except accumulate more. But our precious Constitution and society! What about the sanctity of private property?
As you noted, this is the difference between the modern era and past times like the Great Depression or the Neolithic Era. People AREN'T starving. The United States is NOT Les Miserables, where the choice is steal or starve, degradation or depravity.
Not yet. Although the world is Les Miserables. Millions of people are starving as we speak. The difference between now and then is that no one has to starve now, and the rich have more than they've ever had
On December 06 2013 07:29 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays.
and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again?
It relates to the probability of seeing armed insurrection or a revolution in modern developed countries based on relative poverty. I think it's a ridiculous argument and "pay more taxes or I'll rob you" is a really bad direction to approach inequality.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. "Hey why were you born with all this wealth while we are starving. You need to give us some." It's more ridiculous to think that the wealthy are going to do shit all about redistribution except accumulate more. But our precious Constitution and society! What about the sanctity of private property?
I suppose if you knew some of our history you might actually know what the framers thought about these things! I don't suspect you do, however. A key phrase is "tyranny of the majority."
At most you know a singular quote (or two) from Madison that proves everything is "for the rich."
What did American Tories think of this "tyranny of the majority?" What happened to their property? How about the Confederates? What about their property and freedoms?
EPT
