Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Can Civilization Survive Capitalism?Follow

#1 Mar 12 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Absolutely agreed,

The idiocy born of greed is a contagion without a cure.
#2 Mar 12 2013 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
Capitalism can't survive capitalism, the system leads unerringly to collapse, pretty much by design. Not new information.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Mar 12 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Capitalism is the most difficult path between communism and communism? Besides we'll save the planet when it's profitable to do so, don't worry.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Mar 12 2013 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,610 posts
So much white background. Reading the article felt like reading the words of some extra-terrestrial viewing the world from outer-space.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#5 Mar 12 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
Liberals.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#6 Mar 12 2013 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Fascist!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#7 Mar 12 2013 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
Quote:
The fact that the public is influenced by science is deeply troubling to those who dominate the economy and state policy.
I like this quote.

I'd like to think however that there is strong pressure pushing back on 'those who dominate the economy and state policy', but that may wishful thinking.

I'm going to leave this here...

Introduction to Sustainability

This is a class that just began this week through Coursera. It's being taught by Jonathon Tomkin, a Geologist at University of Illinois Urbana - Champaign. I was just going to watch the first lecture last night, but ended up going through the whole weeks worth of material (and I took the test).

It's relevant as affluence affects the amount of impact of consumption. In other words socio-economic pressures will play a big role in how many people we can comfortably maintain on our earth (carrying capacity) before we crash the system.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#8 Mar 12 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Fascist!


Hag!
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#9 Mar 12 2013 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Fascist!


Hag!

Gah!

agh......
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#10 Mar 12 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Witch!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#11 Mar 12 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
I'd like to think however that there is strong pressure pushing back on 'those who dominate the economy and state policy',

Hahaha, no. This will sound pessimistic, but social control has become very refined in the last 100 years or so. Where previously first world nations faced real threats from the working classes over inequality: the Trade Union movement, actual uprising, general strikes, etc, that's really no longer the case. The solution was instead of vilifying the members of the working classes who acted out, frequently martyring them either symbolically or literally, was to gradually replace the framework of debate entirely with one where incremental progress was possible in improving the conditions of the working class while never actually threatening the status quo.

This is transparent in the US, where the framework of public debate excludes even the conceptual idea that socialism could be a functioning economic system, among other things. The US never intentionally kills innocents, the US only meddles in other nation states affairs for altruistic reasons, etc. These are all essentially givens. Attempting to bring a discussion outside of the constructed framing is dismissed or ridiculed. The goalposts have been moved so far to the side of advantaging the ultra wealthy, that even the idea of recovering some of that wealth *at death* has become unpopular.

The bad news is that it's not going to change. Most people will never be self aware, most people can't escape well delivered social controls even if they are. The same human drive for self gain that leads the ultra wealthy to attempt to squeeze even more from the working classes causes the working classes to aspire to be the ultra wealthy and avoid harming the illusion so that it's intact when they reach that caste.

Read: (Anna) Freud, Bernays, Reiss, Arendt, G H Mead, etc.

I don't want to say it's hopeless, but...it's hopeless. :)
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Mar 12 2013 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,966 posts
This is a pretty good video on the topic: http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Nexa

____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#13 Mar 12 2013 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,242 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Fascist!


Hag!


I am a proud revolting hag.

Smasharoo wrote:

This is transparent in the US, where the framework of public debate excludes even the conceptual idea that socialism could be a functioning economic system, among other things. The US never intentionally kills innocents, the US only meddles in other nation states affairs for altruistic reasons, etc. These are all essentially givens. Attempting to bring a discussion outside of the constructed framing is dismissed or ridiculed. The goalposts have been moved so far to the side of advantaging the ultra wealthy, that even the idea of recovering some of that wealth *at death* has become unpopular.


Unfortunately, on this point, I agree completely. The only real chance that we have as ordinary folks is to somehow "win" democracy, a game that is stacked against us by decades of propaganda and walls of wealth. Even in Canada, which is marginally better off in this regard, the most left of the left parties that stand a chance at even a taste of government are as tame as babes, afraid to actually put forward significant change that would upset the applecart.

While I do think that could change if popular unrest grew to a high enough pitch, the reality is it is unlikely to.

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 11:59am by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#14 Mar 12 2013 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Fascist!


Hag!


someproteinguy wrote:
Witch!




Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#15gbaji, Posted: Mar 12 2013 at 3:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's pretty easy to make a point when you define the thing you're speaking about in a way designed to support it. Just saying. Chomsky's pretty good at this, but that doesn't make him right. So now "capitalism" is to blame for not sufficiently dealing with global warming? Who does he think he's kidding? The only thing capitalism does well in this context is accurately measure the cost versus gain and reject those that wont work. The fact to bring out of this is that the proposals for dealing with global warming will cost a ton of money and wont actually have any effect on the end result. But what Chomsky isn't going to tell you is that wasteful spending is the means to an end he wants. Global warming is just the latest scary thing that the socialists use to convince people to let them spend that money.
#16 Mar 12 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
gbaji wrote:

Again, an odd way of looking at things, given that the rise of the "ultra rich" class has coincided with vast improvements in quality of life for the working class. Saying that the rich squeeze their wealth from the working class is a grossly inaccurate depiction of what's really going on. But socialism requires that people adopt a zero sum viewpoint of economics in order to be adopted, so that's the lie that has to be repeated, no matter how obvious it should be that it's false.

So how would you describe when person A is able to increase their paycheck by reducing the paycheck of person B through reduced hours or layoffs? Maybe squeezing is the wrong word, but when my boss gets a bonus because he kept the payroll down that screams to me one person getting more by reducing what another gets.
#17 Mar 12 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,034 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
This is transparent in the US, where the framework of public debate excludes even the conceptual idea that socialism could be a functioning economic system, among other things.

Because it's worked so well throughout history, right?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#18 Mar 12 2013 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,966 posts
Demea wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
This is transparent in the US, where the framework of public debate excludes even the conceptual idea that socialism could be a functioning economic system, among other things.

Because it's worked so well throughout history, right?


You know this story already sweets...there's never been a socialist society throughout history. Stop baiting him, I'm trying to go to bed.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#19 Mar 12 2013 at 6:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
At 8pm?

What has married life done to you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Mar 12 2013 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,966 posts
Flea would understand...some of us don't get to take naps!

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#21 Mar 12 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've been sick Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Mar 12 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,966 posts
It's pretty

Stopped reading about here. I think this is probably a wise idea with all of your posts. Going forward, I'm only reading the first two words, so try to be concise when responding to me.

Thanks, it is pretty!

(it's Smash, but I'm not logging Nexa out because I'm lazy.)
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#23 Mar 12 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Best approach to interpreting gbaji posts yet.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#24 Mar 12 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
I don't want to say it's hopeless, but...it's hopeless. :)


Capitalsm tends towards crisis.... but it's also the perfect foundation for a stable, unassailable status quo benefiting the very rich.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#25 Mar 12 2013 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,034 posts
Nexa wrote:
Demea wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
This is transparent in the US, where the framework of public debate excludes even the conceptual idea that socialism could be a functioning economic system, among other things.

Because it's worked so well throughout history, right?


You know this story already sweets...there's never been a socialist society throughout history. Stop baiting him, I'm trying to go to bed.

Nexa

Baiting Smash (and to a lesser degree Almalique and catwho) is really the only reason I post in these silly politics threads.

Smiley: frown
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#26 Mar 12 2013 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Tell me about it.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#27gbaji, Posted: Mar 12 2013 at 7:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I would say that's a grossly inaccurate depiction of what's really going on. Your boss doesn't get paid more *because* other people get paid less. The business as a whole is more competitive if it can keep the costs of production down, which also includes payroll. More competitive meaning that it can bring products to market at a lower price. The degree to which this results in a "more money for us as a result of less money for the employees" is directly related to the mobility of those employees. Pay too little, and they'll go to the competition and you'll *lose* competitive advantage by doing this.
#28 Mar 12 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,639 posts
My husband's boss gets a bonus specifically for keeping overtime hours low. This is common knowledge. So when one of my husband's co-workers was on vacation his first year here and he was getting overtime, his boss chastised him and told him it was unacceptable. Everyone who works there either completely fails to report or under reports their overtime hours because they will get written up otherwise.

All so the boss can get his bonus.



Edited, Mar 12th 2013 8:54pm by Belkira
#29gbaji, Posted: Mar 12 2013 at 8:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You missed the whole part of my post where I explained that the objective isn't to give your boss a bonus though. The objective is to keep operating costs as low as possible. If paying your boss a slightly higher amount of money costs them less than paying for unnecessary overtime, then that's a good business decision. You're missing the bigger picture here.
#30 Mar 12 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
I think the point would be that it's not ethical to reward people for treating other people as badly as they can get away with.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#31 Mar 12 2013 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's pretty easy to make a point when you define the thing you're speaking about in a way designed to support it. Just saying. Chomsky's pretty good at this, but that doesn't make him right. So now "capitalism" is to blame for not sufficiently dealing with global warming? Who does he think he's kidding? The only thing capitalism does well in this context is accurately measure the cost versus gain and reject those that wont work. The fact to bring out of this is that the proposals for dealing with global warming will cost a ton of money and wont actually have any effect on the end result. But what Chomsky isn't going to tell you is that wasteful spending is the means to an end he wants. Global warming is just the latest scary thing that the socialists use to convince people to let them spend that money.

Smasharoo wrote:
The goalposts have been moved so far to the side of advantaging the ultra wealthy, that even the idea of recovering some of that wealth *at death* has become unpopular.


That's an interesting way of putting it. "Has become unpopular"? Doesn't that suggest that we always used to tax people's wealth upon their death and only now people are opposing it? It's been pretty unpopular since it was first enacted, and has been called a "death tax" for at least 60 years. The only goalposts that are moving are the imaginary ones in liberals minds.


Quote:
The bad news is that it's not going to change. Most people will never be self aware, most people can't escape well delivered social controls even if they are. The same human drive for self gain that leads the ultra wealthy to attempt to squeeze even more from the working classes causes the working classes to aspire to be the ultra wealthy and avoid harming the illusion so that it's intact when they reach that caste.


Again, an odd way of looking at things, given that the rise of the "ultra rich" class has coincided with vast improvements in quality of life for the working class. Saying that the rich squeeze their wealth from the working class is a grossly inaccurate depiction of what's really going on. But socialism requires that people adopt a zero sum viewpoint of economics in order to be adopted, so that's the lie that has to be repeated, no matter how obvious it should be that it's false.

Wrong, wrong, wRong, wrOng, uttlerly WRONG.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#32gbaji, Posted: Mar 12 2013 at 9:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) He's not rewarded for treating people badly anymore than the store owner is rewarded for ripping off his customers. You're interpreting what's going on with a pretty specific lens. The store owner wants to price his goods as high as he can while still getting his customers to pay for them. You could interpret this as "treating his customers badly" or something, but that's not his motivation. Similarly, the employer desiring to minimize his costs (which include labor) could be interpreted as "treating his employees badly), but that's *also* not his motivation.
#33 Mar 12 2013 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
no problem with slavery, as long as the market doesn't object. yay!
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#34 Mar 12 2013 at 10:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,639 posts
gbaji wrote:
You missed the whole part of my post where I explained that the objective isn't to give your boss a bonus though. The objective is to keep operating costs as low as possible. If paying your boss a slightly higher amount of money costs them less than paying for unnecessary overtime, then that's a good business decision. You're missing the bigger picture here.


Yeah, I don't read your long posts.

My husband doesn't see or speak to anyone from the corporation that owns the company. They are in Las Vegas. He sees his boss, who writes up people for having overtime. Too many write-ups means you get fired. My husband's boss is doing this so he can get a bonus. If the company paid overtime and he still got his bonus, the employees would not get written up.

The objective is to get my husband's boss to bully his employees into not "working" overtime (which is impossible because it's a newspaper, so if you have to get **** done and you can't in the 7.5 hours you have for the day, you have to stay until it's done, so instead they just don't report their overtime so they won't lose their job) so that my husband's boss can get a bonus.
#35 Mar 13 2013 at 12:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,862 posts
The obvious solution to this whole mess is a wombat powered coup to take over the world under a supreme constitutional dictatorship for life. It's the only way to be sure!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#36 Mar 13 2013 at 5:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
I would

Really? Oh, I wouldn't!

You missed

Please. I don't miss.

He's not

Isn't he, though?



Edited, Mar 13th 2013 7:04am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#37 Mar 13 2013 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,894 posts
Demea wrote:
Nexa wrote:
Demea wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
This is transparent in the US, where the framework of public debate excludes even the conceptual idea that socialism could be a functioning economic system, among other things.

Because it's worked so well throughout history, right?


You know this story already sweets...there's never been a socialist society throughout history. Stop baiting him, I'm trying to go to bed.

Nexa

Baiting Smash (and to a lesser degree Almalique and catwho) is really the only reason I post in these silly politics threads.

Smiley: frown

You're pretty good at it too; one might say that you were a master baiter.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#38 Mar 13 2013 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
I would say that's a grossly inaccurate depiction of what's really going on.
Of course you would.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Mar 14 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,242 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the employer could double his profits by paying his employees double their pay, he'd do it in a heart beat


Doubtful. Not when ideology is involved.

Quote:
The market's view of Costco speaks volumes about the so-called Wal-Martization of the U.S. economy. True, the Bentonville (Ark.) retailer has taken a public-relations pounding recently for paying poverty-level wages and shouldering health insurance for fewer than half of its 1.2 million U.S. workers. Still, it remains the darling of the Street, which, like Wal-Mart and many other companies, believes that shareholders are best served if employers do all they can to hold down costs, including the cost of labor.

Surprisingly, however, Costco's high-wage approach actually beats Wal-Mart at its own game on many measures. BusinessWeek ran through the numbers from each company to compare Costco and Sam's Club, the Wal-Mart warehouse unit that competes directly with Costco. We found that by compensating employees generously to motivate and retain good workers, one-fifth of whom are unionized, Costco gets lower turnover and higher productivity. Combined with a smart business strategy that sells a mix of higher-margin products to more affluent customers, Costco actually keeps its labor costs lower than Wal-Mart's as a percentage of sales, and its 68,000 hourly workers in the U.S. sell more per square foot. Put another way, the 102,000 Sam's employees in the U.S. generated some $35 billion in sales last year, while Costco did $34 billion with one-third fewer employees.

Bottom line: Costco pulled in $13,647 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee last year, vs. $11,039 at Sam's. Over the past five years, Costco's operating income grew at an average of 10.1% annually, slightly besting Sam's 9.8%. Most of Wall Street doesn't see the broader picture, though, and only focuses on the up-front savings Costco would gain if it paid workers less. But a few analysts concede that Costco suffers from the Street's bias toward the low-wage model.

Source (a bit old, but proof that lower wages aren't necessarily a better business practice): http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2004-04-11/commentary-the-costco-way


Quote:
Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club. Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.

Source: http://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages/ar/1


Oh look, almost double the profit per employee at costco vs. walmart's "Sam's Club" - with 70% or so higher wages. Yet Walmart continues it's low-wage no-benefits part-time employee **** nonetheless

Why? Because wall st. loves it. Why? Ideology.



Edited, Mar 14th 2013 10:20am by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#40gbaji, Posted: Mar 14 2013 at 11:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You honestly don't see why measuring profit per employee is the wrong way to look at this? Let me give you a hint: Compare a jewelry store with 5 employees to a fast food store with 30. It said right in the article that Costo makes this greater profit on higher priced items relative to Sam's Club. The more correct relationship is to look at profit as a percentage of total operating expenses. And on that measure (also in the article) the two businesses are very very similar. They use different methods to arrive there though. One hires more employees, but pays them lower wages, the other hires fewer and pays them more. Neither is inherently "better" than the other.
#41 Mar 14 2013 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
gbaji wrote:

You honestly don't see why measuring profit per employee is the wrong way to look at this?

Is it because it doesn't fit your narrative?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#42gbaji, Posted: Mar 14 2013 at 11:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Again though, it's not done "so your husband's boss can get a bonus". The company doesn't think "we really want to hand this guy a bonus, so let's come up with some way to reduce costs so we can do that". They think: We need to reduce costs. Perhaps if we give management an incentive to reduce overtime in their departments, the cost of that incentive will be outweighed by the savings in labor costs within the department.
#43gbaji, Posted: Mar 14 2013 at 12:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. Because it doesn't address what I was saying. I said that if a company thought they could double their profits by doubling the pay of their workers, they would. The example presented in counter to this doesn't say anything about that at all. It says that people working at a business with a higher profit/sales ratio can and will pay their employees more money. Which actually proves my point rather than countering it. The value of an employee is based on the revenue that employee's labor produces for the business. So an employee handling 50 $1000 sales is more valuable to a business than an employee handling 500 $10 sales in the same time period (assuming gross profit ratio is otherwise identical).
#44 Mar 14 2013 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
Oh look, almost double the profit per employee at costco vs. walmart's "Sam's Club" - with 70% or so higher wages. Yet Walmart continues it's low-wage no-benefits part-time employee **** nonetheless

Oh look, a batshit insane example that makes no sense. Apple's profit per employee is around half a million. Why? Because they farm **** out to foxcon, not because they pay apple store employees $12 an hour, or whatever it is poors that work there make.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Mar 14 2013 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,639 posts
Quote:
Again though, it's not done "so your husband's boss can get a bonus". The company doesn't think "we really want to hand this guy a bonus, so let's come up with some way to reduce costs so we can do that". They think: We need to reduce costs. Perhaps if we give management an incentive to reduce overtime in their departments, the cost of that incentive will be outweighed by the savings in labor costs within the department.


But it IS "person A increasing their paycheck while decreasing person B's paycheck." And the corporation makes that possible, even has encouraged it. And it's **** up.
#46 Mar 14 2013 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
Again though, it's not done "so your husband's boss can get a bonus". The company doesn't think "we really want to hand this guy a bonus, so let's come up with some way to reduce costs so we can do that". They think: We need to reduce costs. Perhaps if we give management an incentive to reduce overtime in their departments, the cost of that incentive will be outweighed by the savings in labor costs within the department.

The bonus is a "cost" to the business. If the business thought that labor costs relative to labor productivity could be kept low without paying your husband's boss a bonus, they would. Again, those are market forces at work. What I'm trying to get you to understand is that they don't cut labor costs in order to pay the bonus. They pay the bonus in the hopes that labor costs will be cut that will be greater than the cost of the bonus. And they hope that it'll be done in a manner which does not negatively impact productivity/revenue over time. If they're right, they'll make money. If they're wrong, they'll lose money.


This is close enough to correct not to quibble with.

The problem is the logical conclusion of continuing to maximize profits in this way is hollowing out the middle class to the point where aggregate demand falls and, in simple terms, there are no customers for the product or service being provided so cheaply. In extremis this is obvious. A handful of people in charge of a large slave labor force aren't going to do as well as 1000 people in charge of a low wage labor force. Productivity will be higher, as will profits. There's an economic question of what the most efficent distribution of wealth is, and there's a moral question of what the most humane distribution of wealth is. Neither are answered by naked capitalism or "free" markets. The idea that they are is sort of parody of actual economics. "The market solves everything" doesn't work, and never has. It'd be great if it did, but alas, no.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#47 Mar 14 2013 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
A bell curve sounds like it'd be pretty ok.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#48 Mar 14 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,242 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Oh look, a batshit insane example that makes no sense. Apple's profit per employee is around half a million. Why? Because they farm sh*t out to foxcon, not because they pay apple store employees $12 an hour, or whatever it is poors that work there make.


Given that Sam's club and Costco are direct competitors, your quibble makes no sense. They are in the same business - and while they may be targeting slightly different demographics, the point stands. If I was comparing walmart to apple, you'd have a point, but I am not.

Costco pays it's employee's approx 70 per cent more than walmart/Sams does, yet gets almost twice the profit from each one of them. That's significant. It shows that there is a huge, underrated benefit in paying employees more (at least until a certain point) - as it results in decreased turnover, increased productivity and less shrinkage

Edited, Mar 14th 2013 3:36pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#49 Mar 14 2013 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
Costco pays it's employee's approx 70 per cent more than walmart/Sams does, yet gets almost twice the profit from each one of them. That's significant.

No, that's coincidence. There's a difference. A random correlation being "on my side" doesn't magic it into better data.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#50 Mar 14 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
You can say it's a cost effective measure, but when you get e-mails from your district manager like I do, it is hard to make that distinction. Since he has no tact, he flat out sends messages like "Cut your payroll down because it is now affecting my bonus".

But since you know it is just the way a business operates, I hope you don't do any of the following.
1) Stiff a waitress on the tip because she took a long time taking your order or bringing out the food. (A single person covering 20 tables is not their fault, so don't take it out on them).

2) Don't make a scene or scream at the cashier because you had to wait, standing 15 deep in line at the store because there is only one cashier. (Call up corporate and rant since it was their decision).

3) Berate somebody over the phone since you were on hold for a half hour.
#51 Mar 14 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
1) Stiff a waitress on the tip because she took a long time taking your order or bringing out the food. (A single person covering 20 tables is not their fault, so don't take it out on them).

2) Don't make a scene or scream at the cashier because you had to wait, standing 15 deep in line at the store because there is only one cashier. (Call up corporate and rant since it was their decision).

3) Berate somebody over the phone since you were on hold for a half hour.


None of this ever happens to me. Although to be fair, I do want to shake the people who hold the paper on our mortgage, but that's mainly because I swear I can hear banjos playing and pigs squealing in the background as they ask us to fax them a copy of a property tax bill that's already been mailed to them by the town, that they could look up on the town assessors website, and that we've previously faxed to them, but they somehow didn't manage to walk down from the fax shed to the tax department. Fax machine in the tax department? Yes, they have one, but only outgoing. Why? Because fuck us, that's why.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Poldaran, Samira, Timelordwho, Wizorb, Anonymous Guests (32)