Economics

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,575
Reaction score
20,024
I'm all for a flat tax, but a national sales tax would actually be regressive (i.e. it would tax the poor at a higher rate than the rich). While the rich spend more than the poor, they also spend a lower percentage of their income. For example, a family making $200,000 might spend $160,000 and save $40,000, so they'd be paying taxes on 80% of their income. A family making $50,000 might only be able to save $2,000, so they're paying taxes on $48,000, or 96% of their income. Theoretically, this would all be a timing issue because the rich guy (or his descendants) is/are going to spend their savings eventually, but I just don't see it working. They'd have to carve out all kinds of exemptions like food, clothing, and housing, and we'd end up with the same bureaucracy and loopholes that we have today.

I understand the wealthier don't send as much of their income, but a national sales tax is about what you spend, not the percentage of your income that you spend, correct? A national sales tax would be some predetermined rate (7%, 8%, 9% or 10%) on goods purchased, correct? Therefore everyone is paying tax on what they purchase. The wealthy still buy houses, cars, food, gas, vacations, etc.. So how would this not be fair?
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I understand the wealthier don't send as much of their income, but a national sales tax is about what you spend, not the percentage of your income that you spend, correct? A national sales tax would be some predetermined rate (7%, 8%, 9% or 10%) on goods purchased, correct? Therefore everyone is paying tax on what they purchase. The wealthy still buy houses, cars, food, gas, vacations, etc.. So how would this not be fair?

Having less, the poor necessarily consume a much larger % of their income than the rich; it's the law of declining marginal utility in action. Roughly speaking, this is why a progressive income tax is morally preferable to a regressive consumption tax.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
So all of capitalism's good features are evidence of its moral superiority to other economic systems, but any drawback is simply blamed on the moral failures of individuals?

Roughly speaking, this is why a progressive income tax is morally preferable to a regressive consumption tax.

I think this is where the crux of our disagreement usually comes from in this and other threads. I do not believe that capitalism is "morally superior" to other systems because I do not attribute morality (or evil) to economic systems or mass nouns of humanity (society, us, we, etc.). Economic and political systems are inherently amoral and can only be evaluated based on their tendency to yield moral or immoral actions from the individuals therein. Individuals can sin. Individuals can have virtue. The verb "ought" is only applicable to the singular person. "I ought to..." and "you ought to..." are proper, but my virtue cannot be dependent on what others do, therefore "we ought..." is invalid.

1. The most preferable system is one in which individuals are free to exercise virtue.
2. Liberty is necessary to exercise virtue.
3. Therefore, the most preferable system is one built upon liberty.
4. Features of an economic system built upon liberty include free exchange of goods and services.
5. The free exchange of goods and services leads to a free market, capitalist society.

Greed and other sins that we witness in our world are not flaws with capitalism, but flaws with people. This is as fundamental as the Fall of Man and general imperfection of humanity. The liberty to exercise virtue necessarily includes the liberty to sin.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
...

Greed and other sins that we witness in our world are not flaws with capitalism, but flaws with people. This is as fundamental as the Fall of Man and general imperfection of humanity. The liberty to exercise virtue necessarily includes the liberty to sin.

Not trying to hi-jack the thread but it strikes me that this is essentially the credo of the NRA, "Guns don't kill people; people kills people."

Btw, The Fall of Man is part of a belief system not a fact.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Not trying to hi-jack the thread but it strikes me that this is essentially the credo of the NRA, "Guns don't kill people; people kills people."
Yeah, and...?

Btw, The Fall of Man is part of a belief system not a fact.
"People aren't perfect" IS a fact, whether you call it the Fall of Man or you come to that conclusion just by observing people. Whiskey has some very sophisticated theological views so I framed my statement in a Judeo-Christian context.
 

Bubba

Beer Drinker
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
176
I think this is where the crux of our disagreement usually comes from in this and other threads. I do not believe that capitalism is "morally superior" to other systems because I do not attribute morality (or evil) to economic systems or mass nouns of humanity (society, us, we, etc.). Economic and political systems are inherently amoral and can only be evaluated based on their tendency to yield moral or immoral actions from the individuals therein. Individuals can sin. Individuals can have virtue. The verb "ought" is only applicable to the singular person. "I ought to..." and "you ought to..." are proper, but my virtue cannot be dependent on what others do, therefore "we ought..." is invalid.

1. The most preferable system is one in which individuals are free to exercise virtue.
2. Liberty is necessary to exercise virtue.
3. Therefore, the most preferable system is one built upon liberty.
4. Features of an economic system built upon liberty include free exchange of goods and services.
5. The free exchange of goods and services leads to a free market, capitalist society.

Greed and other sins that we witness in our world are not flaws with capitalism, but flaws with people. This is as fundamental as the Fall of Man and general imperfection of humanity. The liberty to exercise virtue necessarily includes the liberty to sin.

Wiz,
What you say is very valid. Reading Whiskey's response makes me believe that he does realize that the systems are amoral. I agree; this is a people issue and people are flawed.

This is also why I have difficulty agreeing with our study of economics in general. We have no way to predict the variables of human flaws/emotional response/greed/etc... People do not always use data to make their decisions and those that do do not always interpret the data in the same way. Some make decisions without regards to morals and values and this is unfortunate. It is the reason we cannot have a completely "free market." There must be some rules in place to provide some sort of protection. Otherwise, those who have the win at all cost mentality will always win. And those who choose to be moral will always be at a disadvantage.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Wiz,
What you say is very valid. Reading Whiskey's response makes me believe that he does realize that the systems are amoral. I agree; this is a people issue and people are flawed.

This is also why I have difficulty agreeing with our study of economics in general. We have no way to predict the variables of human flaws/emotional response/greed/etc... People do not always use data to make their decisions and those that do do not always interpret the data in the same way. Some make decisions without regards to morals and values and this is unfortunate. It is the reason we cannot have a completely "free market." There must be some rules in place to provide some sort of protection. Otherwise, those who have the win at all cost mentality will always win. And those who choose to be moral will always be at a disadvantage.
The bolded is where I think your argument falls apart.* For every rule, there's someone in charge of interpreting and enforcing it. The interpreters and enforcers are subject to the same flaws and imperfections as the rest of the people. In fact, they're more prone to the immorality that they're supposed to guard against because power has a corrupting influence. This is the point that Bogs was trying to make when he started this thread. We make all these rules to fix all these problems but the people enforcing the rules (i.e. politicians) go and do the same things they're supposed to be guarding against (corruption, etc.) with the power of the military and police behind them. The cynicism people hold towards free markets somehow evaporates when we're talking about the government.

EDIT: Please note that "free market" does not mean "no rules." A free market has courts to prevent lying/cheating/stealing and to enforce freely entered contracts.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I don't know why I'm getting into the mix here, but...

Regarding the minimum wage: if the minimum wage was raised to a level where these people were not eligible for food stamps/welfare programs, wouldn't their actual income remain fairly similar. The only thing that changes is that their employer is now actually paying them instead of the federal or state governments, right? So, there is no additional purchasing power and there should not be a correlating inflation... Perhaps I'm making that to be more simple than it actually is. Can anyone here explain further?

It all comes down to greed in my book. Companies want higher margins on their goods. If the people (consumers) make enough money, I would rather make 20% profit on my goods rather than 5%. Like the "lazy" employees someone spoke of earlier in this thread, the company also wants to produce as little as possible to make the most they can.

The fact remains that the divide between the haves and have-nots continues to grow larger. The people with money make the policies and control our government. They want to keep it that way, because it provides security for their individual futures. They do not take the nation's well being into consideration. This is very short-sighted in my opinion; ultimately our system will meet its demise if we continue along the path we are going.

I'm not saying I'm for wealth re-distribution, but something needs to even the playing field so that the average worker can keep his head above water without government assistance.

Brilliant and insightful post.

I always enjoyed how in my business classes, the author would coin his/her own term and the weak sauce instructor would use book chapter exams, in doing so test me on chapter vocabulary.

IrishEnvyism: the state of being for worthless fucks to pretend they know everything about everything,

This is the incisive post of the thread. This is not my brother from another mother making a putdown of some on the site; this is a clear observation of the distinction of some when wrestling with the topic of the ages, resulting to the comfort of known facts and figures.

I wanted to create a thread to get at the core of why so many people who called themselves, say, Christians, felt that it was right and moral to fuck your neighbor over three times, and the people who were not in favor of that were somehow lazy, immoral, or in another way defective. And I wanted to do it in a way that the conversation could incorporate science and a teleological basis, not inconsistent with an ontology expressed by most on the site.

Unlocking the key as to how so many could see the Christian dogma and laissez-faire Capitalism, could exist side by side in our lives with little notice of some obvious discrepancies.

My hat is off to Whiskey. To Buster. To Irish#1, Chicago, and many others, as well as Johnny.

Maybe we can talk about how both Christianity and capitalism have been coopted by humanity to communicate social norms. And how maybe that has corrupted our view of both.

But for the meantime for the facts, figures and slide rule guys : no one disputes your systems truth or validity within itself. I think without putting anyone's name on the line, or words in anyone's mouth, your systems truths are valid within your system.

On three levels. Supply and demand. Simple rule. Does the rule change if the social desire for a result changes? If that is the case, then some of the rules need to be re-defined from time to time. And if that is true, where is the validity of arguing we are locked in by a closed system that forces a zero sum game. In other words, that there has to be poor, or starving.

Lots of other things, too. Then we wouldn't have to argue that basic support can be achieved by a person earning $5 per hour.
 
Last edited:

Bubba

Beer Drinker
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
176
The bolded is where I think your argument falls apart.* For every rule, there's someone in charge of interpreting and enforcing it. The interpreters and enforcers are subject to the same flaws and imperfections as the rest of the people. In fact, they're more prone to the immorality that they're supposed to guard against because power has a corrupting influence. This is the point that Bogs was trying to make when he started this thread. We make all these rules to fix all these problems but the people enforcing the rules (i.e. politicians) go and do the same things they're supposed to be guarding against (corruption, etc.) with the power of the military and police behind them. The cynicism people hold towards free markets somehow evaporates when we're talking about the government.

EDIT: Please note that "free market" does not mean "no rules." A free market has courts to prevent lying/cheating/stealing and to enforce freely entered contracts.

Your edit seems to be contradictory to the rest of your post. I realize you are referring specifically to contracts, but the lying/cheating/stealing goes on even amongst those who are not entering into contracts.

If I understand you correctly, you say we should not have rules in the free market because those who enforce them can be corrupt as well. Let's expand that... Maybe we should not have any rules in society at all. Everything is fair game, you defend yourself. The police are just a socialist program anyway, so lets get rid of them. They are probably corrupt because they have power.

Without any rules, the possibility exists that one organization could grow large enough to purchase every other organization and eventually have a monopoly on everything. One employer to run the world, everyone works for them. I know this is an extreme scenario, but it is possible in a market without any rules. Despite the fact that those enforcing the rules can be corrupt, there still needs to be rules. So, I don't believe my argument is invalid.

You claim that the "enforcers" are more prone to corruption because of power. That was my same position with the people at the top, but it seems that you disagree with my position in that regard. Money = power. So, with your logic, the CEOs are more prone to corruption than the average employee.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I think this is where the crux of our disagreement usually comes from in this and other threads. I do not believe that capitalism is "morally superior" to other systems because I do not attribute morality (or evil) to economic systems or mass nouns of humanity (society, us, we, etc.). Economic and political systems are inherently amoral and can only be evaluated based on their tendency to yield moral or immoral actions from the individuals therein. Individuals can sin. Individuals can have virtue. The verb "ought" is only applicable to the singular person. "I ought to..." and "you ought to..." are proper, but my virtue cannot be dependent on what others do, therefore "we ought..." is invalid.

Economic and political systems are not morally neutral objects waiting to be discovered and tried by fallible humans. They are social constructs, with their own assumptions and value judgments, that are more or less moral depending on their outcomes. If the above were true, the landmark papal encyclicals condemning communism would be incomprehensible.

1. The most preferable system is one in which individuals are free to exercise virtue.

Given the primacy of free will in Christianity, I'm inclined to agree with this. Though virtue must be taught; it's transmission from one generation to the next has been ensured for millienia by intermediate institutions that capitalism is explicitly hostile towards. So one can easily conclude that capitalism is not conducive to virtue.

2. Liberty is necessary to exercise virtue.

This depends on your definition of Liberty. The ancient Greek and Catholic conception is that Liberty is self-mastery; the freedom to pursue the Good. The social contractarian concept of Hobbes and Locke is that Liberty is freedom from "oppressive" institutions (tradition, custom, community, etc.), allowing individuals to pursue their own interests. You seem to be using the latter definition.

4. Features of an economic system built upon liberty include free exchange of goods and services.

There are alternative systems that feature the free exchange of goods and services, but without extreme individualism and the hostility towards family and community it breeds.

5. The free exchange of goods and services leads to a free market, capitalist society.

No. Capitalism was the natural result of a debased and secularized form of Protestantism (described in my first post in this thread). If you agree with the underlying theology, then you'd probably have no issue with capitalism. But it wasn't simply an inevitable outgrowth of the American predisposition towards Liberty; it was the product of Locke's radical individualism.

Greed and other sins that we witness in our world are not flaws with capitalism, but flaws with people. This is as fundamental as the Fall of Man and general imperfection of humanity. The liberty to exercise virtue necessarily includes the liberty to sin.
I would never suggest otherwise. But it's not morally neutral. It's based on the idea that man is most free in the State of Nature, and that we should sweep away all those intermediate institutions that constrain human greed and desire in order to return to that State. The atomization of society we see today is directly due to this philosophy, and I'm very skeptical that its benefits outweigh the apparent costs.
 

stonebreakerwasgod

LMI steals vbucks
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
623
Anyone saying something positive about Jimmy Carter loses..automatically.

New terms were invented specifically for that economy.
 

tussin

Well-known member
Messages
4,153
Reaction score
1,982
Brilliant and insightful post.
I wanted to create a thread to get at the core of why so many people who called themselves, say, Christians, felt that it was right and moral to fuck your neighbor over three times, and the people who were not in favor of that were somehow lazy, immoral, or in another way defective. And I wanted to do it in a way that the conversation could incorporate science and a teleological basis, not inconsistent with an ontology expressed by most on the site.

Unlocking the key as to how so many could see the Christian dogma and laissez-faire Capitalism, could exist side by side in our lives with little notice of some obvious discrepancies.

What does the bolded even mean? Ignoring some of the economic arguments against redistribution policies... free will, keeping what you earn, and the institution of private charity are fundamental pillars of Christianity. Since when does that constitute as "fucking over your neighbor."
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
On the macro level, there is plenty of evidence to support all of my points.

There has never been an instance in this country where the minimum wage has gone up and worker productivity as a whole has gone down.

I promise a apology post if can show a point of time in our history where we raised the minimum wage and productivity fell.

New industries / jobs will be created. In the 60s, there were millions of people working as telephone operators.

I actually hope you are right about this that would mean capitalism survives. Marx would disagree with you, believing that machines will bring down capitalism. Seeing the insane increase of worker productivity I'm gonna say Marx ends up being right though I don't think it will happen so soon that I'll live to see it.
 
Last edited:

tussin

Well-known member
Messages
4,153
Reaction score
1,982
There has never been an instance in this country where the minimum wage has gone up and worker productivity as a whole has gone down.

I promise a apology post if can show a point of time in our history where we raised the minimum wage and productivity fell.

Reread my post, I said that there is plenty of data to back the macro points I made regarding minimum wage.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Why the ideas of Karl Marx are more relevant than ever in the 21st century | Bhaskar Sunkara | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Capital used to sell us visions of tomorrow. At the 1939 World's Fair in New York, corporations showcased new technologies: nylon, air conditioning, fluorescent lamps, the ever-impressive View-Master. But more than just products, an ideal of middle-class leisure and abundance was offered to those weary from economic depression and the prospect of European war.

The Futurama ride even took attendees through miniature versions of transformed landscapes, depicting new highways and development projects: the world of the future. It was a visceral attempt to renew faith in capitalism.

In the wake of the second world war, some of this vision became a reality. Capitalism thrived and, though uneven, progress was made by American workers. With pressure from below, the state was wielded by reformers, not smashed, and class compromise, not just class struggle, fostered economic growth and shared prosperity previously unimaginable.

Exploitation and oppression didn't go away, but the system seemed not only powerful and dynamic, but reconcilable with democratic ideals. The progress, however, was fleeting. Social democracy faced the structural crisis in the 1970s that Michal Kalecki, author of The Political Aspects of Full Employment, predicted decades earlier. High employment rates and welfare state protections didn't buy off workers, it encouraged militant wage demands. Capitalists kept up when times were good, but with stagflation – the intersection of poor growth and rising inflation – and the Opec embargo, a crisis of profitability ensued.

An emergent neoliberalism did curb inflation and restore profits, but only through a vicious offensive against the working class. There were pitched battles waged in defense of the welfare state, but our era has largely been one of deradicalization and political acquiescence. Since then, real wages have stagnated, debt soared, and the prospects for a new generation, still wedded to a vision of the old social-democratic compact, are bleak.

The 1990s technological boom brought about talk of a light and adaptive "new economy", something to replace the old Fordist workplace. But it was a far cry from the future promised at the 1939 World's Fair.

The 2008 recession shattered those dreams, anyway. Capital, free of threats from below, grew decadent, wild, and speculative.

For many in my generation, the ideological underpinnings of capitalism have been undermined. That a higher percentage of Americans between the ages of 18 and 30 have a more favorable opinion of socialism than capitalism at least signals that the cold war era conflation of socialism with Stalinism no longer holds sway.

At an intellectual level, the same is true. Marxists have gained a measure of mainstream exposure: Foreign Policy turned to Leo Panitch, not Larry Summers, to explain the recent economic crisis; and thinkers like David Harvey have enjoyed late career renaissances. The wider recognition of thought "left of liberalism" – of which the journal I edit, Jacobin, is a part – isn't just the result of the loss of faith in mainstream alternatives, but rather, the ability of radicals to ask deeper structural questions and place new developments in historical context.

Now, even celebrated liberal Paul Krugman has been invoking ideas long relegated to the margins of American life. When thinking about automation and the future of labor, he worries that "it has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism – which shouldn't be a reason to ignore facts, but too often is." But a resurgent left has more than worries, they have ideas: about the reduction of working time, the decommodification of labor, and the ways in which advances in production can make life better, not more miserable.

This is where what's evolving, however awkwardly, into the 21st-century socialist intellectualism shows its strengths: a willingness to present a vision for the future, something deeper than mere critique. But intellectual shifts don't mean much by themselves.

A survey of the political landscape in America, despite Occupy's emergence in 2011, is bleak. The labor movement has shown some signs of life, especially among public sector workers combating austerity, but these are at best rearguard, defensive struggles. Unionization rates continue to decline, and apathy, not revolutionary fervor, reigns.

Marxism in America needs to be more than an intellectual tool for mainstream commentators befuddled by our changing world. It needs to be a political tool to change that world. Spoken, not just written, for mass consumption, peddling a vision of leisure, abundance, and democracy even more real than what the capitalism's prophets offered in 1939. A socialist Disneyland: inspiration after the "end of history".
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
What does the bolded even mean? Ignoring some of the economic arguments against redistribution policies... free will, keeping what you earn, and the institution of private charity are fundamental pillars of Christianity. Since when does that constitute as "fucking over your neighbor."

Capitalism viewed as a morally neutralizing endeavor, is a license to "do harm to your neighbor", or as people humorously say, "do to your neighbor, before he does to you." Fighting, winning, producing, and recognizing any other forces, or dictum other than free market rules is different than what Jesus said; "Love your neighbors, as you would love yourself."

A huge mistake I have seen in my life, which is evident in this thread is a lack of distinction between morally neutral, amoral, and immoral. Not only was Whiskeyjack correct in his assessment of capitalism not being morally neutral, it is not a "morally neutralizing construct." Many people who make investment choices that negatively impact others, feel assured in the fact that the market rules absolve them of any individual responsibility for their choices.

Full disclosure : My parents made a ton on Wal-Mart stock. A ton. But it can be documented one of the main sources of the success and profit that was paid to investors (including my parents) was the fact that the company guided employees that were being paid substandard wages to government agencies for benefits. By the way, these same people were contributing heavily to politician wanting to roll back these same entitlement programs.

A better example of this was the ends justified the means tactics of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland, after his armies under his son(or son-in-law) were defeated. The Cromwellian English used some of the most brutal tactics of killing, and dismembering wounded and fallen enemy, killing and starving women and children, outright, and by herding them without adequate clothing into the inhospitable environs of the bogs at night and in the winter. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people brutally murdered, all dismissed at the wave of a hand, because the end justifies the means.

Before anyone even comments on the relevance of my comments. Tying one to the other the common thread is found in the Christianity of some. That same Calvinistic Doctrine, that influenced Cromwell and his presbyter's, is that same theme of capitalists, used for their own justification, and in its most innocuous facet was claimed by British apologist for the throne as the reason that Americans revolted. This claim was made by mainstream British rulers agents, and ministers through Margret Thatcher. It is not true, and the lie of it is exposed.

The difference and distinction is that capitalism is amoral, without morality, not from absolution, or lack of need, but from impotence, self-incapacity, or inability. To be correctly run, it needs to have a moral and representative control.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Anyone saying something positive about Jimmy Carter loses..automatically.

New terms were invented specifically for that economy.

I think Carter was inept but if you think the President really has that much control over the economy then you are simply wrong.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
1. Supply curve for goods and services shifts right. Lower wages mean the demand curve shifts left. Quantity supplied remains roughly constant and prices drop. You make less money than you used to, but the prices have adjusted accordingly so your purchasing power remains constant.

MkSh44d.gif

Well I think the miracle of capitalism is that it crushed prices so significantly that it it actually increased your purchasing power, no?

I think your scenario works in a competitive market, but does this (price drop) apply when oligopolies dominate the marketplace? I would bet not so much.

Is it fair to say that in a competitive market you lower costs to beat your competitor, in an uncompetitive market you lower costs to increase your profit margin, no?

2. Something like 2% of workers actually earn the minimum wage. If you make even a penny above the minimum wage, it means your labor is worth more than the artificial price floor and therefore you wouldn't be harmed if the price floor were to disappear.

3. It's better to work for $5/hr. than to not work at all.

I think these are missing the point entirely. We are forming an economy of low-skill service employees.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
New industries / jobs will be created. In the 60s, there were millions of people working as telephone operators.

Before the industrial revolution, basically every person on Earth accepted that universal poverty was inescapable. They had their minds blown when capitalism came and turned the world upside down (in a good way):

lgCDCa0.gif


qkFdW8T.gif


ywyfP28.gif


Crush the cost of making a product, thus creating wealth. It is a miracle. But they were wrong then (about the permanence of their economic model), and so capitalists who feel that we will always be able to move human capital to new industries can be wrong too.

Never before have robots and technology been "smart." This is the new industrial revolution that can potentially automate entire industries. The ability of robots to 1) know where they are (i.e. pinpoint GPS), 2) communicate other robots, and 3) communicate and understand humans, is something that is going to make the automation of the 1960s look downright ancient. And hell I haven't even brought up robots that can learn.

Can I summarize economic activity as "make it, move it, sell it"? When happens when entire industries can "make it, move it, sell it" without people?

Make it. Manufacturing and packaging is the home of automation, so I'll leave that alone. Clearly we've all seen robots in factories (and they're getting better).

But take for example something like farming. You won't need millions of migrant workers, or even pesticides, when we have GPS-guided drones roaming the rows. They can shoot lasers at bugs, measure the frequency of their wings flapping, and know instantly if it's a harmful bug. They'll be able to weed rows, and harvest crops. They'll load them onto trucks destined for the factory...

Move it. Distribution (i.e. warehouses and transportation) are in the process of being dominated by automation. Take a look, it's not hard to imagine people-less warehouses (already exist) loading self-driving trucks that dock and unload themselves via some sort of opposite of the warehouse.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3UxZDJ1HiPE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IgMekYoaUlk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sell it. Self-checkout lines ring a bell? The other post's kiosks too. How about Amazon's drone delivery?

A good economy has 4% unemployment. A bad one has like 7% unemployment. You don't need to completeley replace many industries before you have a monumental impact on the economy. We will throw millions of unskilled (or uselessly skilled) workers back into the job lines, and econ101 tells me that should lower the wage every unskilled worker will get.

How is this not anything but bad if we approach it the same way we have been?
 
Last edited:

Bubba

Beer Drinker
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
176
Buster,
That's some great stuff there. I'll share some personal experience in regards to some of the things you talk about.

First, when I was stationed in Korea, we spent about 3 months replacing the runway at the base I was stationed. Despite the fact that we have monstrous industrial equipment that could have ripped up the old one in a matter of days, they had men with jack hammers tearing up the old concrete and ladies picking up the pieces, placing them in 5 gallon buckets and transporting them to larger dumpsters to be removed by trucks. The Korean people are aware that people need jobs for the economy to survive. How long will it take our young country to realize that as the population grows we will have to figure out something that keeps these people employed?

The technology out today is amazing and it is only going to get better. My Dad works on a farm. Today he "drives" a tractor that guides itself. He actually drives it to and from the field he is working in and in certain other circumstances. The only thing keeping him in that tractor is they don't yet know how to prevent potentially fatal accidents because they can't account for random events. I don't know what the farm worker is going to do for a living once they figure that out. Obviously they'll figure something else out, but technology continues to limit the possibilities - while at the same time creating possibilities.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
How is this not anything but bad if we approach it the same way we have been?

This is ultimately why we're going to end up with a Basic Income. There will be no feasible way to create enough low-skill jobs to keep everyone employed through this Automation Revolution you've just described, so we'll pay them all to sit home, smoke pot, play video games and watch Netflix. It sounds frighteningly like Huxley's Brave New World. Hopefully this unemployable underclass will be content with whatever Spectacle our elites care to provide, because otherwise we're looking at a violent revolution.

How long will it take our young country to realize that as the population grows we will have to figure out something that keeps these people employed?

Meaningful work is definitely a necessary ingredient to human flourishing. It's just not something our economy is structured to provide. If your skills are valuable to the 1%, you'll have an increasingly small number of high-paying jobs. If not, the market has deemed you unworthy, so good luck making ends meet.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
This is ultimately why we're going to end up with a Basic Income. There will be no feasible way to create enough low-skill jobs to keep everyone employed through this Automation Revolution you've just described, so we'll pay them all to sit home, smoke pot, play video games and watch Netflix. It sounds frighteningly like Huxley's Brave New World. Hopefully this unemployable underclass will be content with whatever Spectacle our elites care to provide, because otherwise we're looking at a violent revolution.

This is the only option I can see too.
 

cody1smith

Active member
Messages
679
Reaction score
61
The average worker works 30-40 hours per week, shows up for work regularly and on time, and is productive for the time he or she is at work. Many of these average workers put in over 60 hours per week at two or more jobs. It is physically impossible to work 100 times harder than that. The boss would have to put in 3,000-4,000 hours per week or more.

The boss might be deserving of two or three times the wages of the average worker. Some might even be deserving of ten times the average salary. But there is no way anyone is worth 100 times the earnings of their average employee.

Let's not confuse the average employee with the lazy employee that calls in sick all the time and doesn't do much of anything when he or she is at work. The latter (lazy employee) should be fired. The former (hard-working average employee) deserves every penny they earn plus a whole lot more.
That's laughable I have employees right now that are worth 100 times more than others. Its about way more than just when you show up.

No offense but anyone that would respond in that way to what I said will never understand. seriously not trying to be a dick when I say that. There are all kinds of people and all kinds of workers. It takes all kinds.
Note for the record I only make 10 percent more than one guy that works for me. And do not make 3 times more than any full timer.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
People for the most part that make more money than your average employee deserve it. If you think the reason your boss makes five times the money you do is because he works five times as hard you are sadly mistaken. Its because he works a hundred times harder than you. And you may never even see or realize it.

Fives times? I said 500 to 1. By the way 500 to 1 is the mean salary not even the low end.

The CEO may be smarter and more talented than the average worker. But nobody works that much (500x) harder than their average employee.

I think CEOs of major corporations should be paid a lot more. I could see a CEO making 50 times the average salary so they make over $2 million maybe. In the 60s the ratio was 30 to 1 and the rich were still very rich.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
This is ultimately why we're going to end up with a Basic Income. There will be no feasible way to create enough low-skill jobs to keep everyone employed through this Automation Revolution you've just described, so we'll pay them all to sit home, smoke pot, play video games and watch Netflix. It sounds frighteningly like Huxley's Brave New World. Hopefully this unemployable underclass will be content with whatever Spectacle our elites care to provide, because otherwise we're looking at a violent revolution.



Meaningful work is definitely a necessary ingredient to human flourishing. It's just not something our economy is structured to provide. If your skills are valuable to the 1%, you'll have an increasingly small number of high-paying jobs. If not, the market has deemed you unworthy, so good luck making ends meet.

Meaningful work is important.

A short term solution is reduce the work week.

Eventually there is only going to be the elites who on the machines.A relatively smal middle class off educated skilled workers.Then a very big underclass.

Maybe the increased leizure time will give America time to reestablish the importance of having strong communities.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,260
Fives times? I said 500 to 1. By the way 500 to 1 is the mean salary not even the low end.

The CEO may be smarter and more talented than the average worker. But nobody works that much (500x) harder than their average employee.

I think CEOs of major corporations should be paid a lot more. I could see a CEO making 50 times the average salary so they make over $2 million maybe. In the 60s the ratio was 30 to 1 and the rich were still very rich.

We get it, you think CEOs are overpaid.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
We get it, you think CEOs are overpaid.

Certain current CEO's yes. Cody, respectfully, who posted here is definitely not.

My grandfather was underpaid. He took a Fortune 500 manufacturer out of the Depression and expanded them by a factor of 150X in eighteen months starting within days of the beginning of WWII. And then he converted production to non war specialty, and industrial products after the war without missing a beat and grew the company every year through his retirement. Think about it, two retooling's, not just changing the dies, but gutting the factories for producing new products, and not missing a beat. He made more than most, but it was nothing compared to these schmucks today. They don't have to be tough, innovative, or imaginative. They don't have to sweat and bleed for their companies. They just have to find ways to inflate the value of their company to justify bigger bonuses.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Well I think the miracle of capitalism is that it crushed prices so significantly that it it actually increased your purchasing power, no?

I think your scenario works in a competitive market, but does this (price drop) apply when oligopolies dominate the marketplace? I would bet not so much.

Is it fair to say that in a competitive market you lower costs to beat your competitor, in an uncompetitive market you lower costs to increase your profit margin, no?



I think these are missing the point entirely. We are forming an economy of low-skill service employees.

This depends heavily on the strategy of the company. Simplistically, firms compete on price and/ or quality. A form can have a higher cost so long as there is quality that ultimately delivers increased value.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Certain current CEO's yes. Cody, respectfully, who posted here is definitely not.

My grandfather was underpaid. He took a Fortune 500 manufacturer out of the Depression and expanded them by a factor of 150X in eighteen months starting within days of the beginning of WWII. And then he converted production to non war specialty, and industrial products after the war without missing a beat and grew the company every year through his retirement. Think about it, two retooling's, not just changing the dies, but gutting the factories for producing new products, and not missing a beat. He made more than most, but it was nothing compared to these schmucks today. They don't have to be tough, innovative, or imaginative. They don't have to sweat and bleed for their companies. They just have to find ways to inflate the value of their company to justify bigger bonuses.

That's quite the broad brush there. So all CEO's care about is tricking investors?
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Fives times? I said 500 to 1. By the way 500 to 1 is the mean salary not even the low end.

The CEO may be smarter and more talented than the average worker. But nobody works that much (500x) harder than their average employee.

I think CEOs of major corporations should be paid a lot more. I could see a CEO making 50 times the average salary so they make over $2 million maybe. In the 60s the ratio was 30 to 1 and the rich were still very rich.

Clearly these greedy bloodsucking corporations dont agree, they value the CEO at 500x, and unfortunately, its their decision.
 
Top