income inequality

[thaumaturgy]

Perhaps you've been somehow blessed to not have to tug on them more than others have.

But the tugging some conservatives do will not necessarily result in improved economic positioning.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This "lack of compassion" you accuse me of just a sorry attempt to derail the discussion.

WRONG.

This is a discussion of economics and politics, not a discussion of charity.

You seem to forget economics and politics involve "PEOPLE". Hence compassion should be part of it. It is for me but then I'm not a "Christian".

I vote for higher taxes on myself to make for a more compassionate and just society. I work for grass roots things related to politics in California that will make for a more economically equitable society.

I bring up "compassion" because I see little in your posts. And I find it confusing. Maybe it's also because you seem to think of yourself as enough of a "Christian" to call yourself "ChildofGod".

I vote what my beliefs are. My master isn't money.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Schools certainly don't fit the criteria of a "natural monopoly". If they did, how could we have a thriving system of private schools in spite of the government monopoly?

In the same way that I can have a bunch of battery powered items in my home yet the electic company is still a "natural monopoly".

With technological advances such as wind and solar, the barriers to private electrical grids are quickly dropping away.

Really? So you are going to drop "the grid" altogether? Because that's one of the biggest barriers to entry. You going to outfit each home with its own solar? That's good. I installed a solar panel on my house and I haven't paid an electricity bill in over 2 years now. But it still hooks into the grid.

Wind power? That's a bit trickier. Relatively localized. Not sure you could make it work on a house-by-house basis.

So, yes, if you get rid of distributed power grids you will have a fall of a natural monopoly. Don't count on it happening soon.

The only reason these monopolies still exist is because the government forbids private industry from entering the market. Oh, didn't I say that earlier- that monopolies can only exist with government complicity?

No they exist because your proposed ideas are just that: ideas. Only small scale and won't work on a larger scale without a huge capital investment. We went into some amout of debt (short term) to install solar. I guess poor people are S.O.L., huh?

 

[childofGod1]

While i 100% agree that capitalism inherited poverty and sub-standard living, in of itself, it doesn't ameliorate them. Technological advancement is largely responsible for the increase standard of living in first world countries, but it isn't solely capitalism that is responsible for technological advancement.

Capitalism creates an environment where technological advancement can flourish. Compare the technologiacl advances that ahve come from capitalist societies with the ones that ahve come from socialist and communist societies, and the correlation is undeniable. Because capitlism rewards the inventor and the innovator, it encourages that behavior.

Where we really differ is that you believe that some forms of coercion are more valid that others. You believe that economic coercion is acceptable, yet societal coercion is not. I believe that societal coercion is preferable than economic coercion. The sole landowner in an region will get others to bend to its will just as quickly as the state can.

Who is advocating economic coercion and in what way?

Do you not believe there is intrinsic value to life? In a society of abundance, providing protection for the least among us against economic coercion is a legitimate use of societal will.

I believe that lordbt's constant advocacy of individual rights is proof positive that he places a high value on life.

Providing protection of individual rights is a legitimate use of law.

Providing goods or services to those who are unable to provide for themselves is a legitimate use of personal will.

 

[childofGod1]

Have you read the link that thaumaturgy makes reference to? Have you addressed anything he has written about healthcare expenditure being unpredictable and difficult to "comparison shop" for? Or the issue of the cheapest possible treatment? Those are the details of his post, and the case that he makes, that you conveniently ignore. It's easy to say "You've made no case" when you don't actually bother to engage with what was written.

Except for the fact that those same arguments could be used for ANY market product, that they're nothing but excuses, and that they don't support his conclusion, they're great arguments.

 

[childofGod1]

Sorry lordbt, but you lost this one.





Again, if you can show me where I claimed to have established the case that healthcare is not a normal market good. (Obviously I agree with that statement, but you keep accusing me of decreeing that I have made that case, which I have never said.)

If you can show me where I have stated that (as opposed to the more open-ended "some feel" or "it is not necessarily agreed to be").

As you say "perhaps you should keep up with your own arguments".

Since you seem not to agree with the source you cited, why are you arguing?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Capitalism creates an environment where technological advancement can flourish.

Correct, but it doesn't have to be unbridled capitalism. I am currently over in Europe working with some of our partners on development of new technology in our area. These folks are just as capable of generating new tech as we are. In fact, because many of these european companies have a longer view (and many pay their chief executives less money) development of new tech sometimes works really well here!

Compare the technologiacl advances that ahve come from capitalist societies with the ones that ahve come from socialist and communist societies, and the correlation is undeniable.

Yes, let's do!

Computers: largely developed due to government funding for research into weapons in WWII.

Freeze dried food, calculators, advances in kidney dialysis, new insulating materials for homes, hazardous gas monitoring equipment advances,: largely developed by the government funded Apollo program. (LINKY)

Huge advances in agriculture: largely due to research done by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) (Feel free to ignore this link HERE which outlines the huge number of agricultural breakthroughs brought to you by government funded science since the late 1800's!)

About 55% of the research that lead to the top 5 selling drugs in 1995 was done by taxpayer funded research.

Now this is not to say that private industry doesnt' develop new technology, but never ever forget what we have worked as government scientists did for the country as well.

Because capitlism rewards the inventor and the innovator, it encourages that behavior.

ORLY? I am an inventor (I am guessing I have more patents than you do) and while I was at the USDA I got nothing extra in my paycheck for my patents. At one industry each filing netted me a "silver dollar", at the company I work for now they do give us some nice cash incentives. But up until the last year my pay, when adjusted for cost of living, had actually gone done year over year for 5 years straight. Last year they finally got back on track with some raises. So do tell me all about how "inventors are encouraged"! I'd love to hear you talk about it at length!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Since you seem not to agree with the source you cited, why are you arguing?

Oh wow. You missed it where I said that I do agree with the source I cited.

Here, to show you your errors:

No I did not make that claim. I claimed merely that some felt it was not a normal market good. A point I agree with for the reasons outlined, but at no time did I claim to have DEMONSTRATED THAT HEALTHCARE WAS NOT A NORMAL MARKET GOOD.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You said I made it up. Now that you have a little egg on your face for knowing

I am still wondering where you got the requirement. Just telling me that some unnamed great mind said it doesn't = an answer to my query.

so little about basic history, you want to run me around doing research.

So sad. You made a statement and now you can't even be bothered to back it up. (Look, I'd be glad for you to show me your sources, I'm not saying I'm perfectly right...I'm just saying that taking your word for it isn't doing much to impress me.)

The fact that you look down your nose at research is sad, though. That is my life (that's why I cite references on here ad nauseam). But it's not for everyone.

I suggest you do it yourself

FYI: I don't need to defend your points.

I know it's ridiculous that I am forced to make such a distinction, but you keep getting thuggery and capitalism confused with each other.

Actually, again, you are factually in error. Here's a bit of logic:

It is possible to be both a capitalist and a thug. One can also be a capitalist and NOT a thug.

I think I have been quite clear on this point. I have never said that they were equivalent so, by definition, I could not be "confusing" them.

If you found a post in which I equated all capitalism with thuggery without caveat, then please post it.

Very nice, but there are a couple mistakes there.

Oh then you'll have to take it up with economists.

Private ownership isn't limited to the means of production. It also includes capital

Is that not implied in #2? But OK I'll agree.

and the ownership of the self and of individual rights to life and liberty.

Hmmmm, now that I won't necessarily agree with because I have not seen a definition of capitalism in which "ownership of the individual" and "rights to life and liberty" are necessary.

Please provide a source for this. (It is, after all, your point). And note my later discussion of labor vs capital in the capital system.

I'm glad you are such a stickler for propriety in your research since it seems to bring you so much enjoyment.

I am a professional research scientist. When I debate someone I expect that person to at least be able to support their own points.

(Again, this is why I provide citations, because I could always be in error. It is part of the "code of conduct" most of us who live in research live with. As an alternative example, I am currently taking patent classes, one of the things one does is answer patent examiners "rejections". This is done methodically and requires citations and explanations. One usually does this by referencing the appropriate portions of the Code of Federal Regulations, the US Code and the MPEP as well as, on occasion, some specific case law. Then one may also cite specific portions of a patent used in a traverse. "Col 2 Lines 3-15 clearly state..."

If one were to use your approach and just make ex cathedra statements then they would likely fail to prove their point and ultimately lose the patent.

Oh, but you in an earlier post told me all about "inventors" in the U.S. So I'm assuming you know all about this already!

Early contract negotiations:

Contract law is a rather detailed set of regulations and law.

That's what I was talking about when I said that the government did it wrong. They should have concerned themselves with enforcing property rights and individual rights laws rather than regulating the management of capital by private companies.

Take that Teddy Roosevelt and the entire first couple decades of the 20th century! You guys did it all wrong! ChildofGod can see that clearly now almost 100 years later!

When Corp. X destroyed the property of Corp. Y, the problem wasn't that Corp. X had too much money or was too big, the problem was that Corp. X ignored the rights of Corp. Y, rights that should have been protected by just laws and proper enforcement.

That sounds a lot like equivocation. In providing "protection" to Company Y you are, by definition, keeping Company X from doing something with its own capital.

Let's talk details:

Company X and Company Y make widgets. Company X is big and decides that Company Y needs to be taken out. So Company X, who can afford to do so, lowers their prices and sells widgets at a persona loss to themselves but at prices that Company Y cannot do.

Now, company X cannot sell these things forever at a loss, just long enough to drive Company Y out of business. AFter that COmpany X can jack up the prices even higher and make more profit.

This is called DUMPING. And there legal actions that companies can take in the U.S. on this particular anti-competitive action.

BUT you want to protect Company Y. So you basically say to Company X "You do not have the right to set your prices as you wish". It protects Company Y by putting a restraint on Company X.

There are many "anti-competitive" practices which are enforced in this country. But note how they put restrictions on how a given company can run itself.

See Grog and Ock above.

So are you extending "law" to mean just any set of interactions? I don't understand why you would keep bringing up "caveman" stories when we are discussing legislation.

Law is necessary to prevent vengeance through the initiation of force.

What does that mean? "through the initiation of force"? Which law specifically are you talking about? (Go ahead and give me the CFR chapter and section I can look it up).

Yes, you can. Of course, There's no guarantee that you'll succeed, and a risk that your strategy will backfire, destroying both you and your partner.

Ummmm, actually no, you can't. That's called "price fixing" and is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust act (codified in , 15U.S.C. §§ 1–7 )

(Hint: you might want to familiarize yourself with the law before you, um, go out and do any more business.)

Gee, I might be hurt if I were here to impress you.

No worries.

You certainly may suggest it, but since the whole book is filled with various aspects of his concept, it would be impractical.

Didn't you even have to write a research paper in school? You can cite certain chapters or pages. You don't have to type the whole thing out.

-sigh-

Of course I do.

Existentialist window glass is flat and shiny, therefore existentialism causes flatness and shininess.

No, the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Do I have to provide a citation for that too?

OK:

The No True Scotsman Fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity when making an argument.

Example and explanation:

Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say “Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

Obviously the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well, but in attempting to shore it up the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.
(SOURCE)

I see nothing there to indicate any legal wrongdoing on the part of Walmart. If I were a supplier, I would probably not choose to deal directly with Walmart

Sadly that option is not open to a lot of industry. Walmar is enormous. And in some industries if you don't deal with Walmart as your channel you don't get to play very long.

In some small towns (like my hometown) Wal Mart has effectively shut down the downtown and now everyone has to buy everything at Wal Mart...or have to drive 60 miles round trip to Springfield.

So you have your "ideals", but your ideals would see your company bankrupt in a short while.

Oh yeah, and Wal Mart isn't doing anything "wrong" here. In fact obviously they've played the capitalism game quite well.

They've effectively amassed capital and without undertaking anticompetitive positions (apparently) have been able to almost single-handed decimate the "free market" in small towns across the U.S.

Maybe you haven't seen the newspapers for a couple decades.

, because they are masters at coming up with contracts that limit the suppliers control over their own products.

Ummm, no, that isn't really it. They just control so much of the market through quite legal means that if you don't do business with Wal Mart you lose a huge bit of access to the market.

You need to be a very keen negotiator to deal with them

No. Wal Mart lays the conditions out, you take them or leave them. End of story. Wal Mart doesn't need your widgets, they will find someone to sell them widgets who will be more "driven" than you and who will take the terms.

You lose.

No "negotiation" there.

, but pride and the lure of huge profits are a temptation many suppliers simply don't resist.

Wow! So you haven't seen any of the news reports about how companies deal with Wal Mart?

Huffy
Mr. Coffee
Rubbermaid

It might be wise for suppliers to end their contracts with Walmart and insulate themselves by dealing with a third party distributor instead.

That's called an ideal and I very much agree with the wonderfulness of that ideal. But that isn't how the market is set up to work now.

Guess you'll have to impose some laws on Wal Mart and how they do business, huh?

The reason Walmart has such power is that suppliers enter into voluntary contracts that give Walmart that power.

When you strip away the "reality" of the situation and put it like that you make it sound so simple!

But again, in many areas Wal Mart is the market. It is the only source for goods in some towns. Economies of scale allow Wal Mart to decimate small towns (like my hometown) and destroy a once thriving downtown area of small shops.

My mom lived in my hometown til the day she died. And she tried to keep from shopping for everything at Wal Mart but after a while that meant basically going to Wal Mart for most things, and the Dollar Store where she could. Or driving 60 miles round trip to go to some other store in Springfield.

Those are quite often poor business decisions on their part. I guess that high priced CEO might have been a good investment for Vlasic, huh?

No, no it wouldn't. I work for a Fortune 100 company. We have had extremely high priced CEOs in the past and guess what: we fought to get some of our products in the Wal Mart channel. Now we are much safer because we are so huge, but Wal Mart is a huge market.

Of course some regulations are necessary to protect people from hidden dangers, such as cancer caused by certain solvents. This falls under contract law

Ummmm, I don't think so. It's covered in 29 USC Chapter 15. Occupational Safety and Health.

Contract law is covered under 41 USC.

, if you hide pertinent details of a contract, it constitutes fraud, a form of initiating force.

No one is hiding any details in this matter. That's why 29 USC exists. I don't see your connection between 41 USC and 29 USC. Care to "flesh that out", Learned Hand?

The constant barrage of superfluous warnings tends to obscure the truly important ones, leading to the behavior you described, of disregarding the rules.

To some extent I will agree with you on this point. Prop 95 in California takes it a bit too far with regards to warnings. But generally, since I work in many places that are quite dangerous I'm happy with erring on the side of safety.

What kind of workplaces do you spend time in?

This Amercan obsession with safety and warnings carries a cost, both in human lives and in higher prices. The government can't make the world a safe place. Life is dangerous and always ends in death.

Spoken like someone whose never had to move a 5' tall compressed gas tank around a lab or someone whose never had to get liquid nitrogen out of a giant tank the size of a semi-truck, or someone whose never walked around a paper mill floor with a 40 ton roll of paper swinging overhead.

Ahhh, it must be nice to work in "safe" places. But you can thank those of us who take the jobs in dangerous places. (And even I didn't work in the really nasty places like my wife did! When she was in environmental geology she worked at some scary places like refineries --sometimes those explode-- or hazardous waste sites --those had to be cleaned up because they presented a health hazard, silly laws and all.)

 

[stamperben]

WRONG.



You seem to forget economics and politics involve "PEOPLE". Hence compassion should be part of it. It is for me but then I'm not a "Christian".

I vote for higher taxes on myself to make for a more compassionate and just society. I work for grass roots things related to politics in California that will make for a more economically equitable society.

I bring up "compassion" because I see little in your posts. And I find it confusing. Maybe it's also because you seem to think of yourself as enough of a "Christian" to call yourself "ChildofGod".

I vote what my beliefs are. My master isn't money.

Just so you know. There are Christians out here who are compassionate. There are Christians who don't believe Christ gives one any sort of freedom to exploit another for profit. That there are Christians who actually believe that Christ want us to share His vision, no, it is His MESSAGE of caring for those less fortunate than most.

Please don't judge us by the verbiage of those with a skewed vision of Christianity.


PS: I also admire your tenacity in continuing to engage in that dialog. I personally tired of it. It takes to much out of my spirit.

 

[Yekcidmij]

There's one thing I've noticed here. People are confusing money for wealth. John Maynard Keynes dubbed the phrase "money illusion" as the phrase for thinking in nominal terms vs. real terms. What matters is not the number of dollars you hold, but what your dollars can purchase.

Your wage is a nominal term. What your wage can purchase is a real term. I think it's important to understand that changing nominal terms across a closed economy will not necessarily change real terms. If everyone's wages change together then prices, savings, and investment will all change. Changing the incomes of everyone in a closed economy does not mean that people are better off than before. What good is $1K extra a month if prices grow proportionally or more?

I would say that if you want those who are poor to be better off in the future than they are today, then you must increase their purchasing power, not their income level. Those 2 things are not necessarily the same.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just so you know. There are Christians out here who are compassionate. There are Christians who don't believe Christ gives one any sort of freedom to exploit another for profit. That there are Christians who actually believe that Christ want us to share His vision, no, it is His MESSAGE of caring for those less fortunate than most.

Please don't judge us by the verbiage of those with a skewed vision of Christianity.

Not to worry at all! Most of my friends are Christians so I know that most Christians truly do act to treat people well. (I just like razz some pious ones who seem to not show that aspect as much as they probably should. And I am doubtful that even CHildofGod is as heartless as she sometimes comes off. Already she's confessed to boycotting some companies for their actions, so I assume CoG is taking a position that is, while perhaps dear to her, is probably not the way she actually lives her life out!)

PS: I also admire your tenacity in continuing to engage in that dialog. I personally tired of it. It takes to much out of my spirit.

Well, right now I'm sitting in a hotel in England. I can't get out long enough to go play proper tourist because I have about a hundred conference calls, the print schedule for the facility I'm working with is very unstable so I need to be able to get there on a moment's notice, and my patent homework is so dreadfully dull (I have to do responses to a patent examination of a 'golf club shaft'....it's how ya teach patents, though; golf clubs) that I need a break. And arguing is a nice thing to bounce to when I need to unwind.

I did get to play tourist a little this weekend though. Caught a train to York and toured the Cathedral there. I love visiting the old Gothic cathedrals here in Europe when I come here. In the past year I've gotten to see Notre Dame, St-Denis, Yorkminster, the ruins of Kirstall Abbey, the medieval cathedral in Turku Finland and a couple smaller churches.

Tomorrow I fly out to Finland again. Going to tour a paper mill and then we have a pilot trial in another part of Finland. So I'll get to experience some real cold!

 

[stamperben]

Tomorrow I fly out to Finland again. Going to tour a paper mill and then we have a pilot trial in another part of Finland. So I'll get to experience some real cold!

For me, cold and paper equals static. I HATE static on the press. (Like there's really time to acclimate it to the pressroom.) Here's how one claim against the paper company happened. Off Register: Paper Claim - YouTube
It was the bunny in the basket that really does the job there.

 

[whatbogsends]

Capitalism creates an environment where technological advancement can flourish. Compare the technologiacl advances that ahve come from capitalist societies with the ones that ahve come from socialist and communist societies, and the correlation is undeniable. Because capitlism rewards the inventor and the innovator, it encourages that behavior.

That being said, many of the technological advances have come from government funding and government institutions. The Manhattan project and Apollo programs, were government programs. R & D is often funded with government money (often performed by private companies) because private funding of R & D often isn't a good short-term investment for the bottom line.

That being said, i'm not an advocate of a socialist/communist economy. I think that neither extreme is the ideal solution, and that a measured mix a capitalist based economy with the proper government regulations will achieve the most desirable outcome.

While you deny it to be the case, you have yet to show how businesses regulate themselves into caring for the worker.

Who is advocating economic coercion and in what way?

Economic coercion is what causes workers to take jobs which are long hours, low pay, and unsafe conditions. Neither you nor lordbt have expressed any concern for this, or seem to advocate protections against this.

lordbt likes to use the term "tyranny" to represent the government use of force. When the government's policies reflect the will of the people (which they are doing less and less in the US), that would be societal coercion. He has expressed contempt for societal coercion, but seems to feel that economic coercion is acceptable (lordbt, you can correct me if i am misrepresenting your stances).

I believe that lordbt's constant advocacy of individual rights is proof positive that he places a high value on life.

I think that most people place a high value on human life, and don't think that lordbt is an exception (unless he shows me otherwise). That being said, even people who place a high value on human life often advocate policies that don't protect life (of course, which policies "protect life" are often debatable, as evidenced by these very forums on which we participate).

For example, i have stated that i think it is "fair" to provide a living wage (we can get into the weeds on this, but i don't think there's a "one-size fits all" calculation) for workers that fulfill their job requirements. Others seem to think that if we can get someone to agree to working in an environment which damages your lungs, while paying them pennies per day is "fair", as long as the worker enters into that situation voluntarily.

When the options for a person are: work at these low wages or starve, is the decision to work a "voluntary" decision?

Providing protection of individual rights is a legitimate use of law.

Providing goods or services to those who are unable to provide for themselves is a legitimate use of personal will.

I don't advocate a welfare state where it is desirous to be on welfare. I do advocate for society assisting individuals who are less well off. By this, i mean, programs to enable them to work such that they can receive a benefit.

 

[lordbt]

Sorry lordbt, but you lost this one.





Again, if you can show me where I claimed to have established the case that healthcare is not a normal market good. (Obviously I agree with that statement, but you keep accusing me of decreeing that I have made that case, which I have never said.)

If you can show me where I have stated that (as opposed to the more open-ended "some feel" or "it is not necessarily agreed to be").

As you say "perhaps you should keep up with your own arguments".

What you have demonstrated is your inability to engage in honest debate. You base your entire argument upon Health care not being a normal market good, you provide a link backing up this point, then you make the statement that you have "established the case that healthcare is not necessarily agreed to be a "normal market good" and hence really can't be treated as such." To which I said that you had made no such case. (See the part bolded in black, that is the conclusion that you have not established.)

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Suppose I provide a link which states that people who are, oh I dont know, lets say arrogant, boastful and condescending are that way not because they have a big ego, but because they lack an ego. Their boorish behavior is really the result of dim personal self-image and a shallow or nonexistent sense of self-worth. To make up for this absence, they seek that sense of self worth second hand. They raise their stature, so they think, not by any personal achievement, but by belittling those around them.

I then make the following claim: I have established the case that your typical arrogant bore is not necessarily agreed to be a man of big ego and hence really cant be treated as such.

The sentences conclusion--that condescending clods cannot be treated as egoists--has not been established by the preceding paragraph. What has been established by the preceding paragraph is only that some people have reached that conclusion. In your case, the link you provided established nothing more than your ability to use Google. Which is all I said in the first place.

But all of this is just another diversion on your part anyway. You fixate on the semantics of your own poorly worded and lamely sourced post rather than address the issue that started this whole pointless back and forth in the first place--sweatshops. Whatbogsends has decided to pick up the discussion you do not wish to participate in, so if you dont mind, I will move on and respond to him.

 

[lordbt]

While i 100% agree that capitalism inherited poverty and sub-standard living, in of itself, it doesn't ameliorate them. Technological advancement is largely responsible for the increase standard of living in first world countries, but it isn't solely capitalism that is responsible for technological advancement.

Where we really differ is that you believe that some forms of coercion are more valid that others. You believe that economic coercion is acceptable, yet societal coercion is not. I believe that societal coercion is preferable than economic coercion. The sole landowner in an region will get others to bend to its will just as quickly as the state can.

Do you have any specific examples of what you call economic coercion?

Do you not believe there is intrinsic value to life? In a society of abundance, providing protection for the least among us against economic coercion is a legitimate use of societal will.

What is societal will and how is it determined?

 

[lordbt]

There's one thing I've noticed here. People are confusing money for wealth. John Maynard Keynes dubbed the phrase "money illusion" as the phrase for thinking in nominal terms vs. real terms. What matters is not the number of dollars you hold, but what your dollars can purchase.

Your wage is a nominal term. What your wage can purchase is a real term. I think it's important to understand that changing nominal terms across a closed economy will not necessarily change real terms. If everyone's wages change together then prices, savings, and investment will all change. Changing the incomes of everyone in a closed economy does not mean that people are better off than before. What good is $1K extra a month if prices grow proportionally or more?

I would say that if you want those who are poor to be better off in the future than they are today, then you must increase their purchasing power, not their income level. Those 2 things are not necessarily the same.

Good point. A person with a million dollars in his pocket could be very rich, or he could be virtually destitute. Which he is depends upon what things cost.

 

[lordbt]

While you deny it to be the case, you have yet to show how businesses regulate themselves into caring for the worker.

You can answer that yourself. Imagine yourself as an employer that needs employees that have a certain amount of skill and a certain degree of training. Once you have trained them and they are performing the task you need done well, you will wish to keep them around. You dont keep good empolyees around by treating them like crap.

Economic coercion is what causes workers to take jobs which are long hours, low pay, and unsafe conditions. Neither you nor lordbt have expressed any concern for this, or seem to advocate protections against this.

That isnt economic coercion, that is reality. To survive you must work just as to live you must breath. But we dont refer to breathing as metabolic coercion.

lordbt likes to use the term "tyranny" to represent the government use of force. When the government's policies reflect the will of the people (which they are doing less and less in the US), that would be societal coercion. He has expressed contempt for societal coercion, but seems to feel that economic coercion is acceptable (lordbt, you can correct me if i am misrepresenting your stances).

No, you are not misrepresenting them, I just dont think we agree on what is or is not economic coercion. I have employees and I dont feel there is any coercion of any kind going on between me and them. They are with me voluntarily. If I demand more of them than they wish to give or pay them less than they feel they are worth, they can leave. By the same token, if they dont live up to what i need done, i can let them go. That they need to work in order to survive is not evidence that they are being coerced by me, so I dont see why I should somehow be subject to societal coercion.

I think that most people place a high value on human life, and don't think that lordbt is an exception (unless he shows me otherwise). That being said, even people who place a high value on human life often advocate policies that don't protect life (of course, which policies "protect life" are often debatable, as evidenced by these very forums on which we participate).

For example, i have stated that i think it is "fair" to provide a living wage (we can get into the weeds on this, but i don't think there's a "one-size fits all" calculation) for workers that fulfill their job requirements. Others seem to think that if we can get someone to agree to working in an environment which damages your lungs, while paying them pennies per day is "fair", as long as the worker enters into that situation voluntarily.

What is a job? It is you in the course of making your way through life finding that the work you have is more than you can do yourself. So you come to me who has less to do than I need to make my way through life and offer to pay me to help you complete a task. If you must, by law, provide me with a "living wage"you may conclude that what you need done will not provide you with enough to compensate me in such a manner. What then? Perhaps you dont hire me at all. Explain to me how I have benefited from such a law being in place.

When the options for a person are: work at these low wages or starve, is the decision to work a "voluntary" decision?

The primary choice any individual makes is to live or not to live. If your decision is to live, then you must take those step necessary for your survival. If the only option available to you is to work for low wages or starve, you work for low wages since you have already decided that you dont wish to starve. You see the existence of low wages as a bad thing. I see it as a means to this mans survival.

 

[thaumaturgy]

For me, cold and paper equals static. I HATE static on the press. (Like there's really time to acclimate it to the pressroom.) Here's how one claim against the paper company happened.

It was the bunny in the basket that really does the job there.

Oh I like that! Only I'm part of the problem. Since we are working with developing paper when I visit a print facility I'm kind of the 643 questions.

As for static I was once running a job roll-to-roll on a digital press in the Pacific Northwest of all places (you'd think it wouldn't be too dry there), but man the driers on the press cooked the paper and the remoisturize didn't do much to help get it back to moist, so everytime I or one of the techs even got NEAR the rewind stand it was giant arcs for everyone. One poor tech look like he'd been thoroughly electrocuted after a session of grabbing roll-up samples from a bunch of short runs.

Once we stabilize on our formulation I a SO looking forward to having as my pat answer: "I'm sorry but the manufactured paper is fully within the specs so I can't understand why the print looks bad" ("Mottle Brothers Print"? )

 

[childofGod1]

There's one thing I've noticed here. People are confusing money for wealth. John Maynard Keynes dubbed the phrase "money illusion" as the phrase for thinking in nominal terms vs. real terms. What matters is not the number of dollars you hold, but what your dollars can purchase.

Your wage is a nominal term. What your wage can purchase is a real term. I think it's important to understand that changing nominal terms across a closed economy will not necessarily change real terms. If everyone's wages change together then prices, savings, and investment will all change. Changing the incomes of everyone in a closed economy does not mean that people are better off than before. What good is $1K extra a month if prices grow proportionally or more?

I would say that if you want those who are poor to be better off in the future than they are today, then you must increase their purchasing power, not their income level. Those 2 things are not necessarily the same.

Great post, this is the reason hikes in the minimum wage don't work.