|
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 February 07 2018 02:30 CatharsisUT wrote:
The "most people don't have employers" conversation seems pointless. If you have a family of 4 with one working parent, you have 25% of people who are employees but 100% of people who are financially dependent on employers.
I really don't want to get bogged down in this aspect but using the most charitable interpretation there are still ~20% of all families in the US that didn't have a single person employed.
Of the nation’s 82.1 million families, 80.4 percent had at least one employed member in 2016.
www.bls.gov
|
Most businesses use short term lending to make payroll to assure their employees are not impacted by a sudden shortage of liquid assets. In a way, this entire discussion sort of proves the point that people are connected to the stock market in ways they don't really understand.
|
On February 07 2018 02:38 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:30 CatharsisUT wrote:
The "most people don't have employers" conversation seems pointless. If you have a family of 4 with one working parent, you have 25% of people who are employees but 100% of people who are financially dependent on employers. About 150m Americans are part of the workforce, so call it about 40% of the total population. The vast majority of them are getting paychecks from Some Company, Inc. vs another person. My guess is that it's some commentary on how most of us are slaves to corporate america or something vs a strict definition of full/part time employee vs contractor/ self employed or something like that.
On February 07 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:30 CatharsisUT wrote:
The "most people don't have employers" conversation seems pointless. If you have a family of 4 with one working parent, you have 25% of people who are employees but 100% of people who are financially dependent on employers. I just assumed it was more so related to "Well if you are being paid less than a living wage, you aren't an employee" or something like that.
Or it was this:
About 150m Americans are part of the workforce, so call it about 40% of the total population.
Just wow.
This is forcing me to empathize with Danglars and xDaunt in a way that actually makes me slightly nauseous.
|
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts.
|
On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts.
What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here?
|
This is a troubling trend. I'm not sure if its the national discourse or if its being caused by other factors we are not aware of. But anti-immigrant sentiments does not just impact immigrants. It also impacts people who are perceived as immigrants.
|
On February 07 2018 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:38 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 07 2018 02:30 CatharsisUT wrote:
The "most people don't have employers" conversation seems pointless. If you have a family of 4 with one working parent, you have 25% of people who are employees but 100% of people who are financially dependent on employers. About 150m Americans are part of the workforce, so call it about 40% of the total population. The vast majority of them are getting paychecks from Some Company, Inc. vs another person. My guess is that it's some commentary on how most of us are slaves to corporate america or something vs a strict definition of full/part time employee vs contractor/ self employed or something like that. Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2018 02:30 CatharsisUT wrote:
The "most people don't have employers" conversation seems pointless. If you have a family of 4 with one working parent, you have 25% of people who are employees but 100% of people who are financially dependent on employers. I just assumed it was more so related to "Well if you are being paid less than a living wage, you aren't an employee" or something like that. Or it was this: Show nested quote +About 150m Americans are part of the workforce, so call it about 40% of the total population.
Just wow. This is forcing me to empathize with Danglars and xDaunt in a way that actually makes me slightly nauseous.
I mean I have always thought you and Danglers were very similar in your ability to selectively pick and choose facts that suit you and ignore the rest.
|
On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here?
To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion.
|
On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion.
I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying.
|
On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying.
It is sort of like saying that you are not impacted by the price of gas because you don't drive.
|
I agree number of immigrants should be decreased just from an h1b perspective. My industry is clearly negatively impacted by H1B visas.
On the subject of semiconductor/microelectronic manufacturing, H1B is entirely unnecessary. I won't speak for other industries, but we do not need a single immigrant for semi/microelectronic manufacturing. It is abused right now.
When I look at what is happening in the semiconductor industry, I have an easy time believing the same thing is being done in other industries. The benefit is just so clear for employers. I imagine that same benefit is true in other industries. Some other industries may actually be short on candidates, but I doubt it based on how easy a time they have justifying totally unneeded H1Bs in the semiconductor industry.
|
On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying.
No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it.
Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion.
It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though.
|
On February 07 2018 02:52 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/asmamk/status/960909361940967424This is a troubling trend. I'm not sure if its the national discourse or if its being caused by other factors we are not aware of. But anti-immigrant sentiments does not just impact immigrants. It also impacts people who are perceived as immigrants.
It seems like it' smostly an outgrowth of the national discourse; of course it's a feedback loop between the discourse/what politicians say and how people feel.
not at all surprising to see a growth in such sentiment considering how the republicans hvae been talking of late.
I wish it linked further to the underlying graph, so I could see how it went when you go back farther. 2008 isn't that long ago for a graph of this nature.
|
On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier to poke fun at the strawman they built though.
Your argument is still a little unclear. What exactly are you saying here?
|
On February 07 2018 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier to poke fun at the strawman they built though. Your argument is still a little unclear. What exactly are you saying here?
What in the world is unclear about that?
|
On February 07 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:I agree number of immigrants should be decreased just from an h1b perspective. My industry is clearly negatively impacted by H1B visas. On the subject of semiconductor/microelectronic manufacturing, H1B is entirely unnecessary. I won't speak for other industries, but we do not need a single immigrant for semi/microelectronic manufacturing. It is abused right now. When I look at what is happening in the semiconductor industry, I have an easy time believing the same thing is being done in other industries. The benefit is just so clear for employers. I imagine that same benefit is true in other industries. Some other industries may actually be short on candidates, but I doubt it based on how easy a time they have justifying totally unneeded H1Bs in the semiconductor industry.
I agree that the H1B visa is to easily abused and functions must like an indentured servant system, where the visa is held over the immigrants head. I remember this article from last year really solidifying a lot of the complaints I had heard about the visa:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15370248/trump-h-1b-visa-reform-tech-worker-outsourcing-cap
But this part of the visa system that is abused is being conflated with people wanting to move to this country for other reasons. Who are simply not cheap labor or labor that the company can discard at any time, but potential business owners and long term assets to the US. And without robust immigration, we could have a real problem with our economy since people in my generation are having fewer children. We do not want to have to deal with the unsolvable problem Japan is facing, an aging and stagnant population.
|
On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though.
What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse.
Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly.
|
aging population distribution, while it hurts in the short term, in the long term I think japan will benefit from that population decrease.
|
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that.
|
On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly.
Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined.
On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that.
I hope you're trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
