On the Nature of Things | Forum

YMix wrote:

noddy wrote:the government decided all these roles needed university qualifications rather than private aprenticships.
the government demanded this education be user pays
the government created debts to loan sharks to pay for these government decisions.
the government then opened up the borders so overseas kids like indians or chinese could compete for the same jobs.

So the government makes decisions. Sometimes these decisions contradict each other or end up in contradiction, not necessarily because of incompetence. Different groups push for different things.

absolutey, which is why as you experience more and more of that process you can become somewhat cynical its limitations and that changes your politics from being quite so socialist as perhaps it once was.

YMix wrote: In my country I've seen employers demanding a college degree for a data entry job. I have no idea why.

over here thats usually as a defense against accusations of nepotism or litigation.

its pathetic and frustrating to me as it creates a class division around the ability to attend such frivolous courses and puts all the risk for taking those courses on the unemployed.

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


Oxfam62
62 People own as much wealth as half the world’s population

MW-ED486_Captur_20160118065703_NS.jpg

The wealth of those 62 one-percenters has risen by more than half-a-trillion dollars in the last five years, the report said.

At the same time, the total owned by the poorest half has fallen by a trillion dollars.

7 billion people on Earth, 62 people own half the wealth.... the non-rich call them 1%ers?

What if they own half the wealth just cause they have acquired basic math skills?

YMix wrote:
Outsourcing is the private sector's fault, migration partly so. Employers are always looking for cheap labor. Amusingly, they want workers to be well-trained, but still cheap. It's all good if somebody else pays.

As someone who entered the work force in the early 1970's, and witnessed the outsourcing of the last few decades, change "Employers" in the above sentence to "consumers" and I think you will more accurately describe human nature.

Problem still remains how to convince the normal Joes of the world to act against their own short term best self-interests, in order to further the theoretical best long term group interests, or even their own best long term self interests.

More than once I have documented the actions of those I know who preach socialism, yet practice capitalism here at OTNOT.

Seems most are comfortable with the system they are raised in, and the discussions of a "better" system, while interesting are irrelevant to their own personal behavior. Even those who have crossed oceans to reap the benefits of a non-native system have a difficult time admitting that the system they adopted is "better" than the one they left behind. Believe their words, or believe their actions?

Is it too late to change the title of this thread to Humanity and its Discontents?

Simple Minded wrote:As someone who entered the work force in the early 1970's, and witnessed the outsourcing of the last few decades, change "Employers" in the above sentence to "consumers" and I think you will more accurately describe human nature.

I'm not sure I agree.

Seems most are comfortable with the system they are raised in, and the discussions of a "better" system, while interesting are irrelevant to their own personal behavior. Even those who have crossed oceans to reap the benefits of a non-native system have a difficult time admitting that the system they adopted is "better" than the one they left behind. Believe their words, or believe their actions?

Migrants are in search of systems where the pay is better.

YMix wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:As someone who entered the work force in the early 1970's, and witnessed the outsourcing of the last few decades, change "Employers" in the above sentence to "consumers" and I think you will more accurately describe human nature.

I'm not sure I agree.

I would not expect you to agree, Brother. We live on different continents, where it appears all the primary terms (capitalism, socialism, right, left, etc.) mean different things. I also expect that we are separated by about 20 years in age.

Are not employers consumers of labor? Same as customers?

What came first: the stagnating wage or the need for a discount?

Y3ttxGMQOrY

Someone tell Sanders and Trump that 1,400 voters have just become available.

YMix wrote:What came first: the stagnating wage or the need for a discount?

What came first was a radical change in the nature of both capital and labor.

Trying to adjust 21C society to this change using 19C ideologies is simply not going to work.

YMix wrote:What came first: the stagnating wage or the need for a discount?

You missed the first question, please look above, and answer.

Who is defining the stagnating wage? Who is defining the need for a discount?

Think carefully about that second question, it is so obvious, it may be difficult.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

YMix wrote:What came first: the stagnating wage or the need for a discount?

What came first was a radical change in the nature of both capital and labor.

Trying to adjust 21C society to this change using 19C ideologies is simply not going to work.

Indeed.

Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.

~ J. M. Keynes

To his credit, Keynes would probably include himself in this set if presented with new information.

When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?

~ J. M. Keynes, attributed by Samuelson

Anyways, times are indeed changing.

Simple Minded wrote:Who is defining the stagnating wage? Who is defining the need for a discount?

The government as the institution where the conflict between the employer's search for higher profit margins and the worker's need for a decent wage is resolved. The businessman who needs to sell his products and the people who need to stretch their paychecks.

YMix wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:Who is defining the stagnating wage? Who is defining the need for a discount?

The government as the institution where the conflict between the employer's search for higher profit margins and the worker's need for a decent wage is resolved. The businessman who needs to sell his products and the people who need to stretch their paychecks.

I can't tell if you are ducking my questions or simply trying to sell me your religion. So let me try to sell you mine.

Simplification: In the economic world there are customers, employers, and employees. Each group has internal competitors.

Customers buy from both employers and employees. Employees sell to both employers and customers. Employers sell to customers and buy from employees.

Who caps the employee's wages?
a. customers
b. employers
c. competitors who are will to take the employees job at lower wage/higher productivity
d. all of the above.

Now who caps the employers wages/profits?
a. customers
b. employees
c. competitors who are willing to sell to the customer at lower profit margins
d. all of the above.

Who determines the price the customer pays?
a. the customer, because they can always walk away from a bad deal
b. the employer. because they determine the selling price
c. competing customers who are willing to pay more or less for the product offered
d. all of the above.

Fascinates me to no end to see how Fred CHOOSES define himself as a victim, and who he CHOOSES to define as his oppressor. Often seems to be in response to fashions.

I have two friends who have each bought, sold, and owned over 50 motorcycles in their lives. One buys a bike from the other. They both claim they got f**ked on the deal! Only one understands why I think this is hilarious.

My UAW brothers, making 4 times what they could make in a free market, claimed they were oppressed by GM (evil employer), and Toyota, etc. (higher quality car at a lower price). When I told them told them they were also oppressed by my Grandmother on fixed income, and me, the poor schlub who could not afford to buy a new car, they didn't get it. They also couldn't get it when I pointed out that they were their own oppressors when they left work and bought products made by foreign companies or US companies who employed non-union workers. Why would they sell out their ideals? Cause they did not want to pay the higher prices.

Humans are a remarkably consistent bunch. Thankfully we get to shift roles multiple times each day. How to replace the selfish interests of customers, employers, and employers with a infallible, benign power that I can trust to define "fair" better than me, still mystifies me.

Simple Minded wrote:Simplification

I can see that.

Who caps the employee's wages?
a. customers
b. employers
c. competitors who are will to take the employees job at lower wage/higher productivity
d. all of the above.

Employers cap wages through their hiring and wages policies and employees cap their own wages through their skill and dedication. Sometimes competing employers work hand in hand when it comes to wages.

Now who caps the employers wages/profits?
a. customers
b. employees
c. competitors who are willing to sell to the customer at lower profit margins
d. all of the above.

Mainly "e. the employer's ability to find customers and sell his products", followed by c.

Who determines the price the customer pays?
a. the customer, because they can always walk away from a bad deal
b. the employer. because they determine the selling price
c. competing customers who are willing to pay more or less for the product offered
d. all of the above.

Probably b. and c., though it depends on the situation. If we're talking consumer goods, the individual customer has little impact on the price itself. Maybe you can bargain at the farmers' market.

Fascinates me to no end to see how Fred CHOOSES define himself as a victim, and who he CHOOSES to define as his oppressor. Often seems to be in response to fashions.

They also couldn't get it when I pointed out that they were their own oppressors when they left work and bought products made by foreign companies or US companies who employed non-union workers. Why would they sell out their ideals? Cause they did not want to pay the higher prices.

I can offer as a counterexample the French, the Germans and the Poles who would rather buy their own products than foreign stuff. Romanians, on the other hand, would rather buy foreign.

YMix wrote:
I can offer as a counterexample the French, the Germans and the Poles who would rather buy their own products than foreign stuff. Romanians, on the other hand, would rather buy foreign.

Good to know that even though you and I are climbing different mountains (probably on different planets?) Romanians (lefties only, or all?) are just as self-destructive as Amerikans.

No wonder "we" can't fix "those people." They are too much like "us."

Too bad we don't have more diversity to celebrate.... maybe the ET interbreeding program will work.....

Simple Minded wrote:Good to know that even though you and I are climbing different mountains (probably on different planets?) Romanians (lefties only, or all?) are just as self-destructive as Amerikans.

Different reasons, though. Your people are trained to chase the bargain, mine simply think that local products are shoddy. There's also a not insignificant amount of snobbery involved.

YMix wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:Good to know that even though you and I are climbing different mountains (probably on different planets?) Romanians (lefties only, or all?) are just as self-destructive as Amerikans.

Different reasons, though. Your people are trained to chase the bargain, mine simply think that local products are shoddy. There's also a not insignificant amount of snobbery involved.

To each is own is the epitome of the free market, and even in markets that are relatively free, plenty find reason to complain. To me, it seem obvious, at least on this side of the Atlantic, that the answer to all the questions I posted is all of the above. The reasons many would refuse to acknowledge that are legion. The individuals who choose to deny their responsibility, or to deny the power they hold are strange creatures. Hard to feel sorry for them. Being one's own oppressor, may not be exactly freedom, but evidence of free will.... no doubt.

The power of the buyer reigns supreme, yet still I know people who will willingly buy and complain about prices, rather than "learn to do without." Their lack of exposure to generations and individuals who truly knew hard times is my guess.

It is interesting to see the Europeans who come here on long term work assignments slowly evolve into Americans. I suspect the same happens over there, humans are social animals. One of my favorites is a friend from Czechoslovakia. A former revolutionary who claims he and all his friends thought they would be dead before age 19. His thoughts on how the US is evolving into a Eastern Block country are interesting to say the least.

YMix wrote: Different reasons, though. Your people are trained to chase the bargain,

Haha. Next you'll be telling that people are trained to be gay.

mine simply think that local products are shoddy. There's also a not insignificant amount of snobbery involved.

The trade offs of cost and quality are covered in even the most remedial economic literature.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Haha. Next you'll be telling that people are trained to be gay.

That's always a possibility.

From your lips to liberal ears...

2N8y2SVerW8

These Bribing Koch Cognates... aren't they just living the American dream?

I'm a bit skeptical of this one sided stuff.

National Archives Opens Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Records

The interview between the FCIC and Steve Eisman, then of FrontPoint, is enlightening.

Typhoon wrote:I'm a bit skeptical of this one sided stuff.

Rightfully so. Capitalism shoud work if it was spiritually righteous and honestly attempted.
Personally, I doubt that I will live to see that day.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

YMix wrote:What came first: the stagnating wage or the need for a discount?

What came first was a radical change in the nature of both capital and labor.

Trying to adjust 21C society to this change using 19C ideologies is simply not going to work.

What is a 21st century ideology.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:

Typhoon wrote:I'm a bit skeptical of this one sided stuff.

Rightfully so. Capitalism shoud work if it was spiritually righteous and honestly attempted.
Personally, I doubt that I will live to see that day.

Capitalism works great under any condition. That is why it scares who it scares.