How Learning Economics Makes You Antisocial

[GrowingSmaller]

http://evonomics.com/how-learning-e...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Apparently we become more callous and money minded, is that a surprise?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

http://evonomics.com/how-learning-e...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Apparently we become more callous and money minded, is that a surprise?

Maybe because some colleges fail to also teach these students Business Ethics?

Or...maybe people are already antisocial and apathetic, and then encounter an economics class that ends up reinforcing their sociopathic inclinations?

 

[timewerx]

http://evonomics.com/how-learning-e...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Apparently we become more callous and money minded, is that a surprise?

Ironically, that is no surprise if you know a bit of economics.

Follow the path of profits and you'll see where money is coming from - the poor/the less fortunate.

The poor might think the rich is helping them. But it goes two ways, the poor gets a job they desperately need for measly income. The rich reaps a huge profit from their cheap labor.

So here's what happens, the rich makes the poor believes they are heroes of the poor by giving them jobs just enough so they don't starve. But the profits the rich takes from the cheap labor of the poor buys them their private jets, mansions, drugs, super cars, other toys, partying every night.....

Money has blood on it and that's the blood of the weak, the poor....

So here's the final verdict. If Christ comes today and you're rich, you're dead..... (Luke 6:20-26) even science supports the logic behind it.
..
..
..

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ironically, that is no surprise if you know a bit of economics.

Follow the path of profits and you'll see where money is coming from - the poor/the less fortunate.

The poor might think the rich is helping them. But it goes two ways, the poor gets a job they desperately need for measly income. The rich reaps a huge profit from their cheap labor.

So here's what happens, the rich makes the poor believes they are heroes of the poor by giving them jobs just enough so they don't starve. But the profits the rich takes from the cheap labor of the poor buys them their private jets, mansions, drugs, super cars, other toys, partying every night.....

Money has blood on it and that's the blood of the weak, the poor....

So here's the final verdict. If Christ comes today and you're rich, you're dead..... (Luke 6:20-26) even science supports the logic behind it.
..
..
..

That's quite short sighted, imo.

First, let's ignore all the generalizing assumptions concerning the "party lifestyle" of "the rich", as if they are all on drugs and partying all night long.

The employer market is, in a very real sense, just like any other market working by supply and demand.

I am an employer. Suppose I have a spot open in my company.
2 candidates present themselves. For the sake of example, let's say that both are equally capable of getting the job done.
One doesn't want to leave his couch for any less then 3000 bucks a month.
The other will happily take the job for 2000 a month.

Please, why would I employ the first, if the second does it for 2/3 of the money?

Let's take another example: Apple factories.
Let's assume for a second that the US population has the expertise to assemble iphones.
However, operating such a factory in the US costs twice the amount that it does to operate the same factory in China.
Can you give a reason why Apple should build its factories in the US anyway?

These are business decisions. Apple, or indeed any other company that isn't a non-profit organization, is not a charity. They do what they do to make money. They don't do what they do "to create jobs" or "to be nice" or "to hand out money".

They do what they do, to make money.
That means that if you have 2 paths to build your products, you will chose the ones that is cheapest, so you can maximise your profits.

It's what any reasonable business man would do.
You can debate that it is unethical to have chinese people work for 10 hours a day for almost nothing, but in the end it is not the job of the companies to regulate minimum wages and working conditions. At the same time, your corporate policy concerning how you treat your workers will ultimately reflect back on your own business. So it's in the best interest of the company to find a decent balance there, in terms of work ethics and social competitiveness.

But it's upto governments and local authorities to determine what is and isn't legal in this space.

Myself, I have some ethical standards for sure. I, for example, wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knew that my own company engages in what can only be called "slave labor" or "child labor". But at the same time, I'm not an idiot... if someone wants to do a job for 1000 bucks that someone else wants to have 3000 for... you may be sure as anything that I'll be giving the job to the one who does it for only 1000.

 

[timewerx]

These are business decisions. Apple, or indeed any other company that isn't a non-profit organization, is not a charity. They do what they do to make money. They don't do what they do "to create jobs" or "to be nice" or "to hand out money".

They do what they do, to make money.
That means that if you have 2 paths to build your products, you will chose the ones that is cheapest, so you can maximise your profits.

I'll have to say thank you!

Your expert opinion helped prove my point that we are living off the backs of the poor.

Where can you get the cheapest labor to maximize your profits? Obviously, the poor!


You might say for example the garment workers of Gap company in Bangladesh are being managed in every way that doesn't break any law in that country.

Even so, they are still poor by Western standards of living.


Can we allow this in our world for another 100 or 1000 years? Or should we begin changing the way we do things. Let us give others a fair chance at life for a change!
.
.
.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll have to say thank you!
Your expert opinion helped prove my point that we are living off the backs of the poor.

How does that follow from what you've quoted??

If you have a job opening and 2 equally qualified candidates, why would you not select the one who asks for less money?

How does that fit into "living off the backs of the poor"?

Where can you get the cheapest labor to maximize your profits? Obviously, the poor!

Is it upto companies to regulate minimum wages, or upto governments of the country the factory / business finds itself?

You might say for example the garment workers of Gap company in Bangladesh are being managed in every way that doesn't break any law in that country.
Even so, they are still poor by Western standards of living.

By they don't live in the west. Why would you hold them up to a standard that isn't their standard?

If you earn 2000 bucks in Belgium, you are pretty much a sucker. If you earn the same amount in let's say Hungary, you're doing very well for yourself. Living situations are not the same. Economics are not the same. A cola here costs double of what you'ld pay in Hungary.

So if I need to build a new factory and get to choose between Belgium or Hungary, guess where I'ld build it. You would to. And you wouldn't be "extorting" those people, because to their standards, they'ld actually be making a very nice living.

Can we allow this in our world for another 100 or 1000 years?

100, 1000, 100000,... this will never change.
If you a build or expand a company, you will have to make business decisions.
And revenue minus costs equals profits.
You'll want to maximise the revenue and minimise the costs.

Or should we begin changing the way we do things. Let us give others a fair chance at life for a change!

So, what do you suggest then?
That businesses start to not care about profits?
Or perhaps you'ld do away with capitalism all together and gravitate towards some kind of communism?

 

[timewerx]

By they don't live in the west. Why would you hold them up to a standard that isn't their standard?

If you earn 2000 bucks in Belgium, you are pretty much a sucker. If you earn the same amount in let's say Hungary, you're doing very well for yourself. Living situations are not the same. Economics are not the same. A cola here costs double of what you'ld pay in Hungary.

I have experienced living off the minimum wage under a developed country like New Zealand and had compared it in the living conditions of my 3rd world home country

At least in NZ, I had a car. Believe it or not, the cost of a good quality used car was even cheaper than at home.

The cost of food in NZ (if you prepared it yourself) was only slightly more expensive. Apart from major cities, the cost of renting a flat is relatively cheap. The fuel costs is only slightly more expensive.

So here's the verdict: In New Zealand making a buck at minimum wage, I have a car, the neighborhood is great, a little laid back, my flat looks real nice, the food is great....

Back home in my 3rd world under minimum wage, I'll have no car (the cost of used and fuel would be too much under min wage), doing public commute in miserably overcrowded conditions, food is too expensive for the min wage.


The difference is huge. Which is why I considered immigrating to NZ in the first place even just making a buck flipping burger patties at McDonalds or Burger King, life is going to be 5.19x better than in my 3rd world home.

However, it did not work out for me. Flipping patties won't get me new work visa so I had to go home, big loss.



My point is that I have actually experienced living off 3rd world and first world. Both their minimum wage standards.

To get 1st world standard of living in a 3rd world, the salary has to be considerably higher that is so you can have a nice flat, nice meals, and a decent used car without ending up in debt.


There is nothing wrong with capitalism. What's wrong is when we don't care at all at the long term repercussions of near-term business decisions.

Granted, outsourcing work to 3rd world sounds like a good near-term business decision but this will also mean less job opportunities back home. You can tie that to higher crime rates btw, more stressed out cops, more stressed out populace in general. That instability caused by tightening the noose just to get ahead of the competition will ultimately get back to you which is a bad long-term planning... Who even sees the big picture nowadays? Nobody. It's all about money now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point is that I have actually experienced living off 3rd world and first world. Both their minimum wage standards.

To get 1st world standard of living in a 3rd world, the salary has to be considerably higher that is so you can have a nice flat, nice meals, and a decent used car without ending up in debt.

And it is the fault of corporations that are in the business of making money that 3rd world countries have a rough time?

There is nothing wrong with capitalism. What's wrong is when we don't care at all at the long term repercussions of near-term business decisions.

In my first post in this thread, I said that the policy decisions you make as a company, are going to reflect back on your business sooner or later.

I also never advocated the extortion of people or policies that can almost only be called "slave labour".

I'm just saying: if you have a business and have 2 path options that result in the same quality of end-products, and assuming both options are perfectly legal, why on earth would you NOT choose the cheapest?

Granted, outsourcing work to 3rd world sounds like a good near-term business decision but this will also mean less job opportunities back home.

......and MORE JOBS in 3rd world countries.

And once again, as I said in my first post: the goal of a company that is not a non-profit organization is to make money. They are not charities. Nore do they exist to "create jobs". They exist to make money.

You can tie that to higher crime rates btw, more stressed out cops, more stressed out populace in general. That instability caused by tightening the noose just to get ahead of the competition will ultimately get back to you which is a bad long-term planning... Who even sees the big picture nowadays? Nobody. It's all about money now.

Not just now. Always.

If I didn't think that running my own business would eventually earn me more money then to work a classic 9 to 17 job, I'ld just do a classic 9 to 17 job.

Why on earth would I go through all the trouble and stress of building a company, working 7 to 19 (if not longer) every day, including weekends at times, and then some,... if it would pay the same (or less) as a 9 to 17 job where I don't need to worry about a thing, except finishing my assignments during work hours???

 

[timewerx]

I'm just saying: if you have a business and have 2 path options that result in the same quality of end-products, and assuming both options are perfectly legal, why on earth would you NOT choose the cheapest?

On that thought.....

Take a gander at this, you might love this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rise-factory-automation-china-153126997.html


Apparently, the Chinese are figuring out that automation with robotics is the way to go in more cost-effective solutions in making products.

Frankly, I agree with them as I also involve myself in automation in some ways in my work as an analyst and I automate my own analyst tasks whenever I can so I could perform the job of a couple analysts and still participate on the forums at the same time....The company is saving a lot of money with my work even though I practically don't work, just manage the custom applications I created which only takes very little time.

Anyway, here's the problem. You consequently employ less people with automation but people spend money..... People return the money back to circulation. Magnify this situation and we'll have a full blown global recession of unprecedented magnitude... Not to mention, having to deal with lots of angry and hungry unemployed mobs..... things would break down very rapidly and things will get ugly fast!

We will destroy ourselves out of greed. We lose and the robots win and I'm not trying to be funny.

 

[myownmynativeland]

I'll have to say thank you!

Your expert opinion helped prove my point that we are living off the backs of the poor.

Where can you get the cheapest labor to maximize your profits? Obviously, the poor!


You might say for example the garment workers of Gap company in Bangladesh are being managed in every way that doesn't break any law in that country.

Even so, they are still poor by Western standards of living.


Can we allow this in our world for another 100 or 1000 years? Or should we begin changing the way we do things. Let us give others a fair chance at life for a change!
.
.
.

Just blurt it out- you sound like a communist. Are you?

 

[timewerx]

Just blurt it out- you sound like a communist. Are you?

Uhmmm.... nope!

There are many ways to solve the world dilemma. And I'm not betting on communism.

What I'm betting on is a one-world democratic government using just common economic system which is more or less still capitalistic, common currency.

I already got something planned like imposing a population density limit based on the best of first world standard of living. So don't worry about an influx of immigrants from the Middle East!

And building new/expanding cities to distribute overpopulated places to first world standards to prevent multicultural influx shock. We know how everyone hates that and it does causes some big problems.

Ultimately, every part of the planet will be built up and managed to first-world standards so that not everyone resettles in Germany or France! And of course, a certain population density will be maintained so there's no way of that happening! And since first-world standards will be used, existing cities in many developed nations will most likely not receive one more resettler and most likely, those who former immigrants due to the conflicts in the Middle East will most likely be resettled in the new cities. The package will be lovely and I don't think they can refuse it.

Everything will be engineered including how everyone would be made to comply in this new directive peacefully and actually love it!

Someone might say, money will be a problem especially in building the new cities. Well there's a way to turn money "off" and it won't be a problem for the mean time and we'll have major building projects underway, once it is finished, the capitalistic system resumes. It can be made, everything is possible nowadays, that is all for now.

 

[myownmynativeland]

Uhmmm.... nope!

There are many ways to solve the world dilemma. And I'm not betting on communism.

What I'm betting on is a one-world democratic government using just common economic system which is more or less still capitalistic, common currency.

I already got something planned like imposing a population density limit based on the best of first world standard of living. So don't worry about an influx of immigrants from the Middle East!

And building new/expanding cities to distribute overpopulated places to first world standards to prevent multicultural influx shock. We know how everyone hates that and it does causes some big problems.

Ultimately, every part of the planet will be built up and managed to first-world standards so that not everyone resettles in Germany or France! And of course, a certain population density will be maintained so there's no way of that happening! And since first-world standards will be used, existing cities in many developed nations will most likely not receive one more resettler and most likely, those who former immigrants due to the conflicts in the Middle East will most likely be resettled in the new cities. The package will be lovely and I don't think they can refuse it.

Everything will be engineered including how everyone would be made to comply in this new directive peacefully and actually love it!

Someone might say, money will be a problem especially in building the new cities. Well there's a way to turn money "off" and it won't be a problem for the mean time and we'll have major building projects underway, once it is finished, the capitalistic system resumes. It can be made, everything is possible nowadays, that is all for now.

Sounds even worse than communism.