I beleive he is using "is here on Earth under the Pacific or something " as a proxy for the phrase, "place we haven't conducted the appropriate testing at with the appropriate level of accuracy." Effectively, making it as it it were covered by miles of water, for the purposes of the known data set.
Because it is useless, trolly bullshit. That number exceeds worker productivity per hour, by a fair margin. But by looking at what workers actully produce per hour, we can see what compensation might be more equitable.
To say that the labor isn't worth $15 and the labor isn't market clearing at $15 are two seperate things. The price of Labor is both and input and an output, as the price of Labor determines Demand. If your paying everyone $200K per hour and charging $100K for a hot dog, it just might be market clearing.
The equilibrium for your Labor function is the input of almost EVERY OTHER DEMAND FUNCTION IN THE GOD DAMN ECONOMY. So, higher wages are kinda important, while leaving room for appropriate profit. High unemployment wasn't caused by increasing minimum wage, it was caused by stagnating wages, market friction due to vast impovements in worker productivity, rising inequality, deregulation, and the single largest loss of equity in the history of mankind.
By automating jobs for lowskill employee's we have made those high school kids and college kids widely redundant. That automation isn't going away and is only going to expand. There are things we can do to address student debt, but that is another conversation.
oh, and that other line on the financial statment, profits. They are at record highs as a percentage of GDP, so some downward movement wouldn't be a deal breaker.
Now if only that was my problem. The market favors effiency, if the company can't provide a service people want to pay for at what it determines it must charge then why should we prevent a more effient player from suplanting them, large or small.
Now if only your productivity wasn't increasing a vastly faster rate then wages, you might have a leg to stand on with that argument. The average worker leaves about 70% of their productivity in the pockets of their employer. If a 70% average employment tax rate seems fair to you, cool beans. However if you think the relationship between the worker and the owner should be more equitable, then you should probably do something about it.
I'm not sure where the ideal minimum wage number falls, with the average worker making about $19 an hour but producing $67 worth of wealth, it seems that the average worker has plenty of room to demand more. If we had kept the origional method of calculating minimum wage in place (removed 1972) it would be about $27 an hour right now. I think that is probably the right place to try to start looking at the issue from. We had a robust middle class, a great distribution of wealth, much better class mobility, stronger family cohesion, lower divorce rates, lower crime rates, ect. Now, ofcourse there were drawbacks, we supported our government on lower middle class taxes, but higher on the poor and the rich. We would probably end up replacing some unskilled labor with automated processes, but that trend has been persistant since the cotton gin.
Or we could promote unions, to help workers keep a larger portion of their productivity, but all that ever did was end child labor, give us weekends off, the 40 hour work week, and workplace safety standards, so that's probably a dead end too in your eyes?
I would assume, to prevent companies from only hiring people on the side, aka part-time. But that rant isn't mine, so I'm not sure what his reasoning would be.
fredprado, I notice your tinfoil hat is on. The great depression was caused by the government? O'RLY? Possibly by the governemnt not having suficient regulation in place on banks, or on the stock market. But the bank failures and the follow-on collapse of consumer confidence was a cycle that repeated many times, and is a feature of our market based capitalism driven economy.
Your wreaking his Libertarian Dream. Truth be known, the "Free Market" is a logical obstraction used to make math easier, it is impossible to acheive a "Free Market", and no sane person would want to live in that system, where everyone is guarenteed to make zero. Adam Smith called for the need for Government intervention into markets in the Wealth of Nations. Further, these "Government Granted Monopoly" folks are ignoring even more present problems, such as without the government creating the markets they wouldn't exist. In a situation where you have a market that is a natural monopoly, there is a choice. We either have a private monopoly or a public one. Since the US is terrified of using the most effient solution to monopoly abuses, ie socializing the industry, you end up with natural private monopolies.
This is a bad idea. The PHB wants one thing, and that is to feel superior to others. When you put big, confusing numbers and acyronims infront of him he feels uncomfortable. Make shit easy, and speak his language. We spend X dollars, we get Y less downtime then similar organizations. We cost Z less then similar organizations. We earned for you $Z + (Y(Profit per Hour)). Look how much better you are at manging your IT resouces then company A B an C. It gives him something to boast about with his frenemies at A B and C. IT commonly doesn't do a good job of expressing it's bussiness case in a manner that bussiness types really appreciate.
Alternatively, if your not earning your company money, you can highlight what you need to increase that number.
GDP would have to rise, unless they spent zero or negative dollars inside of the US. That doesn't tell us anything about what would happen to GDP under alternative idea's either. I'm pro-immagration, but the Lump of Labor Fallacy really only tells us that as more people earn, more work is demanded, ie as disposable income increases people are prone to spend more disposable income. This would indicate that in certain situations hiring non-union, immigrant labor could be bad for our collective welfare, due to depressed wages. This is also why activities increasing wages, and decreasing GINI are generally good for us as a whole.
One use case is killing people. One is deterant. One is hunting. One is sport. One is peice of mind. Each one has different tollerances for extra safety measures. If i'm looking for personal or home protection, yes i want the simplest revolver with as little between draw and bang. My point was a safety feature that the military uses might not be right for that use case. I personally read the whole 2nd amendment, and feel it doesn't protect a citizen's right to individually own any weapon they want. The 2nd amendment by my reading doesn't regard safety requirments in any way. It seems constitutional, but that doesn't automatically make it a good choice to mandate.
I can't speak about the police, I have never been one. However the level of firearms safety measures the military uses is mind boggling compared to what most people personally follow. Mandatory hours of training, practicing, recertification, back round checks, ect. Strictly enforced rules for storage, carrying and discharging. No walking around with one in the chamber, unless there is emminant threat, ect. After all of that, Military Bases CONUS are effectively weapons free, (aside from Military Police, or firearms training). I personally don't carry (CONUS) or own a firearm. I think if your so scared of where you live, or what you do that you feel the need to carry a fire arm, you should probably move. I do however think you should have the right to have a weapon to protect yourself, if that makes you sleep well at night.
All that being said, the usage case for a firearm is very diffrent for a couch cowboy then for a armed combatant in an active warzone. If a "bad guy" is close enough to take my weapon and use it on me in a warzone there is a very good chance I have no ammo left in my rifle or my side arm. However, in a normal home situation or a mugging, the probablity that the bad guy is with in 10' is about 75% (based off FBI statistics).
They are a diffrent usage case, and military acceptance shouldn't be a lynchpin in acceptance of this saftey measure, the market place should be.
This is nothing but thinly veiled Socialism. The free market always will provide a superior solution... and probably already has. I am not interested in a step backwards and I am definitely not interested in a step towards the European or Russian model. Fuck. Go back to New York or California.
It isn't thinly veiled at all. It is Socialism. And it is so efficient in this marketplace that it has been outlawed time and time again.
This argument is 50% true / 50% bullshit. If you carveout a slice of our fine nation from Boston to DC, you get a population density of about 930 people per square mile. Granted, this isn't by any means close to the whole country, but it is very dense as european nation size land masses go. It provides 1/5th of our GDP, 17% of our population and only 2% of our landmass (about 76Kmiles square). This part of the nation has horrible internet access relative to similarly wealthy and dense nations that didn't subsidise while deregulating telecoms. It is also less compeditive, with fewer entrants, and more expensive for similar teir of service. Perhaps instead of giving the telco's more control over their network we should, idk, what are the successful nations doing. Let's copy them.
Slashdot Mirror
I beleive he is using "is here on Earth under the Pacific or something " as a proxy for the phrase, "place we haven't conducted the appropriate testing at with the appropriate level of accuracy." Effectively, making it as it it were covered by miles of water, for the purposes of the known data set.
Unfortunately, neither car had a ticket at the time of the photo so we can neither confirm or deny the two ticket hypothsis.
But that isn't the common conitation of "natural resource rich". If that is the point you are tring to make you should be more articulate.
Moving the goalposts much?
Because it is useless, trolly bullshit. That number exceeds worker productivity per hour, by a fair margin. But by looking at what workers actully produce per hour, we can see what compensation might be more equitable.
To say that the labor isn't worth $15 and the labor isn't market clearing at $15 are two seperate things. The price of Labor is both and input and an output, as the price of Labor determines Demand. If your paying everyone $200K per hour and charging $100K for a hot dog, it just might be market clearing.
It's a good thing the US has $45 Trillion dollars worth of nautral resources then, compared to Austrailia's paltry $19.9 Trillion.
The equilibrium for your Labor function is the input of almost EVERY OTHER DEMAND FUNCTION IN THE GOD DAMN ECONOMY. So, higher wages are kinda important, while leaving room for appropriate profit. High unemployment wasn't caused by increasing minimum wage, it was caused by stagnating wages, market friction due to vast impovements in worker productivity, rising inequality, deregulation, and the single largest loss of equity in the history of mankind.
By automating jobs for lowskill employee's we have made those high school kids and college kids widely redundant. That automation isn't going away and is only going to expand. There are things we can do to address student debt, but that is another conversation.
oh, and that other line on the financial statment, profits. They are at record highs as a percentage of GDP, so some downward movement wouldn't be a deal breaker.
Now if only that was my problem. The market favors effiency, if the company can't provide a service people want to pay for at what it determines it must charge then why should we prevent a more effient player from suplanting them, large or small.
wages don't devalue the dollar, supply vs demand of dollars devalues the dollar.
Labor is a special market, in that is also drives your demand curve for just about any micro or macro calculation with it's equalibrium.
Now if only your productivity wasn't increasing a vastly faster rate then wages, you might have a leg to stand on with that argument. The average worker leaves about 70% of their productivity in the pockets of their employer. If a 70% average employment tax rate seems fair to you, cool beans. However if you think the relationship between the worker and the owner should be more equitable, then you should probably do something about it.
I'm not sure where the ideal minimum wage number falls, with the average worker making about $19 an hour but producing $67 worth of wealth, it seems that the average worker has plenty of room to demand more. If we had kept the origional method of calculating minimum wage in place (removed 1972) it would be about $27 an hour right now. I think that is probably the right place to try to start looking at the issue from. We had a robust middle class, a great distribution of wealth, much better class mobility, stronger family cohesion, lower divorce rates, lower crime rates, ect. Now, ofcourse there were drawbacks, we supported our government on lower middle class taxes, but higher on the poor and the rich. We would probably end up replacing some unskilled labor with automated processes, but that trend has been persistant since the cotton gin.
Or we could promote unions, to help workers keep a larger portion of their productivity, but all that ever did was end child labor, give us weekends off, the 40 hour work week, and workplace safety standards, so that's probably a dead end too in your eyes?
I would assume, to prevent companies from only hiring people on the side, aka part-time. But that rant isn't mine, so I'm not sure what his reasoning would be.
Not that easy if your starved for capital, because your employer paid you less then a living wage, and stole from you on-top of that.
fredprado, I notice your tinfoil hat is on. The great depression was caused by the government? O'RLY? Possibly by the governemnt not having suficient regulation in place on banks, or on the stock market. But the bank failures and the follow-on collapse of consumer confidence was a cycle that repeated many times, and is a feature of our market based capitalism driven economy.
Your wreaking his Libertarian Dream. Truth be known, the "Free Market" is a logical obstraction used to make math easier, it is impossible to acheive a "Free Market", and no sane person would want to live in that system, where everyone is guarenteed to make zero. Adam Smith called for the need for Government intervention into markets in the Wealth of Nations. Further, these "Government Granted Monopoly" folks are ignoring even more present problems, such as without the government creating the markets they wouldn't exist. In a situation where you have a market that is a natural monopoly, there is a choice. We either have a private monopoly or a public one. Since the US is terrified of using the most effient solution to monopoly abuses, ie socializing the industry, you end up with natural private monopolies.
This is a bad idea. The PHB wants one thing, and that is to feel superior to others. When you put big, confusing numbers and acyronims infront of him he feels uncomfortable. Make shit easy, and speak his language. We spend X dollars, we get Y less downtime then similar organizations. We cost Z less then similar organizations. We earned for you $Z + (Y(Profit per Hour)). Look how much better you are at manging your IT resouces then company A B an C. It gives him something to boast about with his frenemies at A B and C. IT commonly doesn't do a good job of expressing it's bussiness case in a manner that bussiness types really appreciate.
Alternatively, if your not earning your company money, you can highlight what you need to increase that number.
And bring candy.
GDP would have to rise, unless they spent zero or negative dollars inside of the US. That doesn't tell us anything about what would happen to GDP under alternative idea's either. I'm pro-immagration, but the Lump of Labor Fallacy really only tells us that as more people earn, more work is demanded, ie as disposable income increases people are prone to spend more disposable income. This would indicate that in certain situations hiring non-union, immigrant labor could be bad for our collective welfare, due to depressed wages. This is also why activities increasing wages, and decreasing GINI are generally good for us as a whole.
One use case is killing people. One is deterant. One is hunting. One is sport. One is peice of mind. Each one has different tollerances for extra safety measures. If i'm looking for personal or home protection, yes i want the simplest revolver with as little between draw and bang. My point was a safety feature that the military uses might not be right for that use case. I personally read the whole 2nd amendment, and feel it doesn't protect a citizen's right to individually own any weapon they want. The 2nd amendment by my reading doesn't regard safety requirments in any way. It seems constitutional, but that doesn't automatically make it a good choice to mandate.
Or to provide security for the State. Like it says. In black and white. In English.
I can't speak about the police, I have never been one. However the level of firearms safety measures the military uses is mind boggling compared to what most people personally follow. Mandatory hours of training, practicing, recertification, back round checks, ect. Strictly enforced rules for storage, carrying and discharging. No walking around with one in the chamber, unless there is emminant threat, ect. After all of that, Military Bases CONUS are effectively weapons free, (aside from Military Police, or firearms training). I personally don't carry (CONUS) or own a firearm. I think if your so scared of where you live, or what you do that you feel the need to carry a fire arm, you should probably move. I do however think you should have the right to have a weapon to protect yourself, if that makes you sleep well at night.
All that being said, the usage case for a firearm is very diffrent for a couch cowboy then for a armed combatant in an active warzone. If a "bad guy" is close enough to take my weapon and use it on me in a warzone there is a very good chance I have no ammo left in my rifle or my side arm. However, in a normal home situation or a mugging, the probablity that the bad guy is with in 10' is about 75% (based off FBI statistics).
They are a diffrent usage case, and military acceptance shouldn't be a lynchpin in acceptance of this saftey measure, the market place should be.
This is nothing but thinly veiled Socialism. The free market always will provide a superior solution ... and probably already has. I am not interested in a step backwards and I am definitely not interested in a step towards the European or Russian model. Fuck. Go back to New York or California.
It isn't thinly veiled at all. It is Socialism. And it is so efficient in this marketplace that it has been outlawed time and time again.
This argument is 50% true / 50% bullshit. If you carveout a slice of our fine nation from Boston to DC, you get a population density of about 930 people per square mile. Granted, this isn't by any means close to the whole country, but it is very dense as european nation size land masses go. It provides 1/5th of our GDP, 17% of our population and only 2% of our landmass (about 76Kmiles square). This part of the nation has horrible internet access relative to similarly wealthy and dense nations that didn't subsidise while deregulating telecoms. It is also less compeditive, with fewer entrants, and more expensive for similar teir of service. Perhaps instead of giving the telco's more control over their network we should, idk, what are the successful nations doing. Let's copy them.
Did he stutter?