Questions for the Americans.... [Archive] - WannaBeBig Bodybuilding and Weightlifting Forums

Paul Stagg

09-29-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by IceRgrrl
I think the thing that bothers me the most is companies that outsource parts of their operations offshore or to other countries so that they can make even more profit so that fatcat CEO's can be even more obscenely compensated while your average American worker is laid off or shuffled into lower paying work.

I'm not against companies making profits...I AM against the fact that today's CEO pay is so wildly out of line with what everyone else at the company is making. U.S. companies are drastically cutting or eliminating long-term investment in their business in order to chase short-term gains that may not be good moves in the long run. For example, many U.S. "technology" companies do not develop any of their own technologies anymore. They buy the technology from overseas, package it as their own, and sell with a markup.

These two things are not necessarily related.

CEO pay isn't necessarily tied to profitability, and the people deciding what those CEOs get paid are the stockholders - institutional investors, pension funds, individuals, etc.

The stockholders ultimately profit from the profits, so it's their call what CEOs get paid. (I'm not saying some CEO salaries are out of whack, just that the blame lies with the owners of the company)

Moving jobs offshore is sometimes good business. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes cost cutting measures backfire.

Keep in mind, also, that what a company pays to make something has absolutely nothing to do with what the market will pay for the completed product. It only has to do with whether or not someone will make it. There is nothing *wrong* with making huge profits if the market will buy a product at a given price, and there isn't a monopoly.

I don't, in general, understand why the 'American Worker' is entitled to thse jobs.

An argument can be made (and often is), that moving these 'lower skill' or devalued jobs offshore frees up labor resources to do other things, which is actually GOOD for the economy in the long term.

Tryska

09-29-2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Spartacus
?

making products requires workers. so if other countries buy more american products, someone gets hired to make them.

in another country where labor is cheaper.

this is what i am talking about - american companies which used to supply american jobs are now taking those jobs away from americans by setting up their operations in other countries with that other countries labor force.

Tryska

09-29-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by MixmasterNash

Can anyone argue that we should keep the IT industry? I'm not sure that we want it.

if GE and possibly Dell are any example, it's because american's prefer having phone support come from someone who speaks english in a way they understand.

paul would you feel the same way about american worker entitlement if it was your job going offshore?

Paul Stagg

09-29-2003, 03:25 PM

Yup.

Would I be angry? Feel betrayed? Certainly. That doesn't make it wrong. I don't have a *right* to a job, and no company has a responsibility to provide one.

Tryska

09-29-2003, 03:36 PM

i don't understand how not having jobs in all sectors available to americans helps the economy tho?

ryan1117

09-29-2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
...i used to believe it was a good thing for other countries economies that they got US business, however, lately as I've seen many of my friends and coworkers across the country out of work due to business being taken off-shore, manufacturing plants closed down here and taken overseas, only to have those goods sold back to us at the same prices, i have gotten quite irritated by it all...

:withstupi
I'm all for finding the most efficient way, but when prices stay the same, it makes me believe that people are just pocketing the extra profits. (which I guess is just more of an ethical issue than a legal issue)

rpffly

09-29-2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by ryan1117

:withstupi
I'm all for finding the most efficient way, but when prices stay the same, it makes me believe that people are just pocketing the extra profits. (which I guess is just more of an ethical issue than a legal issue)

Prices will stay the same (generally speaking) if people are willing to pay that price. Take for example Nike. What do you think the cost of making a pair of Jordans costs. $25 at the most? (I'd be interested to know if anyone knows) Nike knows that the kids will drop $150 easy. If everyone decided they weren't going to pay that price, there would be no more huge endorsements for LeBron and the price would come down.

Brawl

09-29-2003, 04:18 PM

I was going to post to this, but most here don't have the slightest idea what they are even talking about .

ryan1117

09-29-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by rpffly

Prices will stay the same (generally speaking) if people are willing to pay that price. Take for example Nike. What do you think the cost of making a pair of Jordans costs. $25 at the most? (I'd be interested to know if anyone knows) Nike knows that the kids will drop $150 easy. If everyone decided they weren't going to pay that price, there would be no more huge endorsements for LeBron and the price would come down.
I agree. That is why I said it is more of an ethical issue.

Crystallio

09-29-2003, 06:28 PM

I'm all for finding the most efficient way, but when prices stay the same, it makes me believe that people are just pocketing the extra profits. (which I guess is just more of an ethical issue than a legal issue)

You should also consider that a steady price means that it isn't going up with inflation, and more importantly price doesn't accurately reflect changes in quality (ie a $1500 computer 10 years ago doesn't compare with a $1500 computer today even though the price is the same).

Majestic

09-29-2003, 07:04 PM

I hate to single-out IT professionals, but when I graduated from college back in 1998, the going-rate for an IT job was $40-$60k a year, without a 4 year degree, let alone a doctorate, master's, etc.

Not that you NEED a degree to attain the knowlege you needed for those jobs.....it just seems that even the "less taxing" jobs were pulling huge wages.

My understanding was that many, many people were even landing $60k a year (a gigantic sum of money for a 22 year old in Michigan) without finishing their degree. This was "ok", because these people typically had the knowledge to do the jobs (as they were spelled-out), and the demand was increasing at a ridiculous rate. Right?

Meanwhile, someone with a business management degree has to start off at $24-$35k.

Is it so wrong that IT jobs leave, when people elsewhere are willing to work for so much less??

If we're just talking about the subcontractors for Dell who make $15 an hour working in a call-center.....well.....that's not what I'm classifying as an "IT job". Highschool kids and interns are doing that stuff. I know that for a fact, because a Unisys call center reported to me (Big Three company).

I'm talking about the guys violating the dress code, wearing 802.11b enabled pocketPCs, and watching the Spiderman preview 4 times a day....all while making 60k a year without finishing school, or at the most, a 4 year degree.

It's one thing if you've got that one "odd" degree, like packaging, which 10 years ago was only properly taught at a few colleges, Michigan State University being one of them. That's (or *was*) an automatic 60k a year, with only a four year degree. Toughest class was entry level chemistry. But I wouldn't compare that to IT.

IT, from my admittedly limited perspective, was a widespread phenomenon. College kids making 7th and 8th level manager money at huge corporations, highschool kids making $15-$20 an hour in their free time.

Don't get me wrong.....I'm not a "hater". Some of these guys are my friends! If you have a skill that is in demand, then by all means, RAKE IT IN!

Wasn't it destined to change at some point? Not that I want those jobs to go away. Absolutely not.

Again, I'm *asking*, not telling!

It just seems like it's more difficult to port away the jobs of those who require intense human interaction (managing, marketing, communication, sales, etc.), than it is to outsource IT departments, which to me, outside of the project managers, seem to be "wirelessly mobile puzzle solvers".

I'll probably get slammed for the following, but here goes:

Are these jobs being ported off because they're easy to learn, or because they involve material (software, code, hardware) that anyone below the age of 18 grew up with?

Computers....to me......seem like of the few "tools" that almost every kid MUST learn at an early age. Isn't that going to increase the overall mastery of said tool, per capita?

I can only imagine what a hungry, starving, and capable kid in Asia or Mexico is going to do with a computer in his/her hands.

I'm really not trying to offend anyone. I'm friends with a few project managers myself. They make educated decisions based on their work up to this point, but I think they'd be the first to tell you that their initial jobs....their *entry level jobs*....the ones making them $40k-$60 a year, were a joke. It was just that nobody in management knew what these guys were DOING, or how relatively little decision making/work they were doing.

This never seemed to be the workers' fault, per se, but more a symptom of the sheer amount of IT people that were hired, and the diluted way work was being handed out.

Wasn't this inevitable? The supply has become high, and the demand has lessened, right? Or is that false?

It seemed like you guys were really holding management hostage for a while. I dunno. I'm looking to be enlightened. :confused:

Spartacus

09-29-2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
i don't understand how not having jobs in all sectors available to americans helps the economy tho?

because americans can specialize in the sectors that we do best, and buy products from other countries at lower prices.

As to the issue of "profits," any money saved will temporarily increase stockholder profits, but in the long run will result in lower prices for consumers.

CEO pay, while an issue that needs to be addressed, isn't cause by jobs going overseas. its cause by bad corporate governance.
(a bigger problems is that low-skilled workers aren't very useful to the current and future american economy, which means low wages unless you have some education.)

Also, people have to take responsibility for their own incomes and careers. the classic example is the blacksmiths that lost thier income of making horseshoes when cars became common. if you're not doing something that people want, then you have to find a new job. I'm angry at the greedy carmakers for putting blacksmiths out of business.

mantis

09-29-2003, 08:43 PM

In my opinion...

It's really nothing new. All the tech jobs are moving overseas because there are talents oversea who can do the job with a lot less $$$. It's like TV, microwave, computers, cars, shoes, and etc. When was the last time you purchase a TV that is made in America?

Now the tech/IT jobs are moving into countries like India and China. Why, because they have people who are capable of doing the job for much less. Many of the Top US companies are now routing calls directly to India's call center. You don't even know you are actually speaking to a support Rep in India.

I have work in the IT/Software dev. field for 10 years. It used to cost roughly $750,000 a year for 10 Software QA engineers in the US. Now companies like Webex can hire 300 Software QA guys in China for the same amount of money.

Do I like the way this is going.. no!! But, what can I say? This is the way things are going to be. For the past few years, I had to take on contract jobs oversea because it has been hard to find work in my field in the US.

Again, I don't like the fact that many of the jobs are moving oversea. However, I also field that company have the responesibility to make money for it's share holders. In order to make money, they must stay competitive. There's no way that they can stay competitive if they don't move some of these jobs oversea.

Just my opinion.

VitalRemains

09-29-2003, 08:54 PM

I think it sucks. We're losing all of our jobs and falling apart.

IT, Production, Manufacturing Jobs: Shipping overseas- Less jobs for Americans.

Construction, Automotive, Agriculture, ect: Companies here are hiring illegal aliens to do the jobs cheaper- Less jobs for Americans.

No jobs for Americans = Nobody having $$ to buy these products which = Economy collapsing.

Spartacus

09-29-2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by VitalRemains
I think it sucks. We're losing all of our jobs and falling apart.

IT, Production, Manufacturing Jobs: Shipping overseas- Less jobs for Americans.

Construction, Automotive, Agriculture, ect: Companies here are hiring illegal aliens to do the jobs cheaper- Less jobs for Americans.

No jobs for Americans = Nobody having $$ to buy these products which = Economy collapsing.

america also has hte most high skill workers in the world, and by far the best business environment. US economy has some problems, but its still one of the strongest, most competitive in the world, and will remain so into the forseeable future.

link to comparison of world unemployment rates (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2002/0722/unemployment.html)

The US economy is based around the newest technology availible. as the technology is perfected and there is high-skill work needed anymore to use it, that technology moves to lower skilled nations. people had the same fears when us quit making clothing, TVs, steel, autos, calculators, whatever. its just that we haven't seen where the new jobs will be. we should be happy about this: the jobs that are leaving are leaving because they are low-paying.

Majestic

09-29-2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Spartacus
Also, people have to take responsibility for their own incomes and careers.

The classic example is the blacksmiths that lost thier income of making horseshoes when cars became common.

If you're not doing something that people want, then you have to find a new job.

I like the first statement, and the third statement.

I would submit to you that the middle one is a fantastic example, but slightly different from the topic, in the sense that IT employees *are* still providing a service that "people want".

Business owners (or hungry Human Resource executives) have merely found a way to get these services more cheaply.

EdgeCrusher

09-29-2003, 11:20 PM

If they want to sell us cheaper goods, fine. Companies aren't responsible for citizens incomes, they are responsible for theirs, and as a consumer, I prefer to have my goods cheaper. I don't plan on going into the manufacturing industry either, so this doesn't hurt me or my family (I want to be a university professor).

Trent_Steel

09-30-2003, 12:52 AM

I think what this thread is getting at is capatalism isnt fair, but communism doesnt work, so what are we going to do?

John0101

09-30-2003, 01:05 AM

America is the largest economy in the world. It's big enough that it pulls up other countries while it pulls itself up. Why would America make cheap plastic toys while it could be produce state of the art technology? Why would there be so much immigration if people didn't think they can find work? Signs that manufactoring jobs has been coming for a decade now. Remember how people predicted that after the industrial revolution machines will make humans labour worthless? Well it never did. There are many for jobs which there aren't enough skilled labor for. This is just a structural change and will correct itself with time. So go back to school and learn some skill that people need!

GonePostal

09-30-2003, 01:15 AM

The IT job loss is generally in the lower echelons of the hiearchy. I don't have a problem with that. Anyone with a little time and hard work can become a code monkey. Any respectable tech company that wants to stay ahead of the technology curve develops solely in the US/Canada and maybe in a select few places in Europe.
To answer you Majestic it is because in the beginning very few people knew computers. Any "code monkey" could make decent cash with limited knowledge. This is a function of what I said previously mixed in with the tech boom. Spend money like it's going out of style mantra. I would eat my own shoe to see ANY 18 year old kid do 1/4 of what I am doing right now. (Which is computer hardware design) They just don't have the math/conceptual base to do this. That is why they will never outsource the more technical and advanced true engineering positions out. IT is more of a all encompassing term that includes very "low skill" workers. With every sector the low end of the spectrum will be marginalized and then eventually shipped off.
Money in the tech business is still there and it is recovering now. MS offers internships 4 month internships that pay more in a month then most people make in a 4months. My cousin is down in San Jose making $900/week at a co-op position. Please make a distinction between "IT" and what true tech jobs are. We are not outsourcing our tech industry we are just outsourcing the "manual labour"

GonePostal

09-30-2003, 01:21 AM

The far east so far only provides cheap labour both in the sense of the now ever increasing outsourcing of "tech support/center" type facilities and "fabs". Most of our IC's made today are in the far east (well unless you are a real man). But the designs are totally and wholey concieved in the west. That is how it is and that is how it is going to stay. Why might you ask? Becuase the initial cost of creating your first die/silicon is too high for more asian companies (both start up and established) to absorb. There is very little room for error now and if you don't have experience in design then you better have deep pockets.

mantis

09-30-2003, 02:39 AM

Please make a distinction between "IT" and what true tech jobs are. We are not outsourcing our tech industry we are just outsourcing the "manual labour"

I disagree with the above statement totally. Many of the top US companies now have R&D team overseas. It starts out with the "low tech" jobs, then it went on to "sustaining Engineering". Now, even the "advance development" are being transfer to overseas to countries like India. Microsoft being a perfect example.

Of course, most of the companies will still keep their "core" design teams in the US. However, I believe in the next 18 months, we will see more and more "Hi-tech/Engineering/IT jobs being transfer out to other countries.

After 10 years in IT/Software business. I'm actually thinkiing about getting a law degree now.

Tryska

09-30-2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by GonePostal
That is why they will never outsource the more technical and advanced true engineering positions out. IT is more of a all encompassing term that includes very "low skill" workers. With every sector the low end of the spectrum will be marginalized and then eventually shipped off.
Money in the tech business is still there and it is recovering now. MS offers internships 4 month internships that pay more in a month then most people make in a 4months. My cousin is down in San Jose making $900/week at a co-op position. Please make a distinction between "IT" and what true tech jobs are. We are not outsourcing our tech industry we are just outsourcing the "manual labour"

i beg to differ - i can think of two companies off the top of my head that i have worked for that took their DEVELOPER needs offshore - not the code monkeys. No company i know keeps code monkeys as salaried staff - that's always been outsourced.

and to mantis - re call centers in India and China - yes several companies did do that, but what i'm seeing is a backpedaling, where now they are moving them to Canada, and thankfully Dell is bringing it back to Texas. why? Consumers want people who spoke North American English sorting their helpdesk issues. so in essence for call centers this whole offshore issue has been a big exercise in futility, that cost many people their jobs, and quite a bit of money.

Paul Stagg

09-30-2003, 07:58 AM

I find it interesting that there are people posting here suggesting making profits is unethical.

The price of a good in the market has NOTHING to do with what it costs to manufacure. The cost to manufacture is an internal measure used to choose between production and not production based on the expected price and sales.

In the free market, resources tend towards their best use. If jobs are going overseas from US workers, then those workers are beter used doing something else (or they need to reduce thier price), which is GOOD for the overall market. Freeing up labor resources allows those resources to be used for development of new products/services which otherwise wouldn't have been developed.

This is a long term process. Short term there is pain and cost, just like there is in any process of finding additional resources.

Tryska

09-30-2003, 08:02 AM

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P62115.asp

GonePostal

09-30-2003, 08:56 AM

2000 is a very small drop in the bucket when you look at oracle's total software developer base. That and the fact Oracle's really the only one doing this. The motivation to move certain jobs offshore is not totally driven by cost. Orcale wants to create a business where they are always "developing". When one software developer sleeps in one country another should wake up and start his day.
I don't deny that a small portion of the tech jobs that are being exported are in the highly skilled category. But in the end I believe if the company requires innovation (which not all tech companies are about and some are shifting away from this partially) their development base has to be in the west. More specifically in North America.

Tryska

09-30-2003, 10:31 AM

Oracle isn't the only one doing this, actually, so i'm not sure where you are getting your info.

MixmasterNash

09-30-2003, 10:39 AM

Making profits is extremely unethical when they are had by fraud, distortion, illegal monopolization, etc.

I read in fortune that something like 60% of the top 500 companies have been found guilty of legal infractions.

The idea that corporations are a limited liabilty shield for the individuals that run and own them is generally a good idea, but it has been badly abused in recent years. Business practices are now quite similar to the tycoons of the late 19th century., though without the benefits.

Max-Mex

09-30-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Tryska
what are y'all thoughts on various companies takign their operations off-shore, or outsourcing specific departments (usually manufacturing and/or IT) to companies in other countries?

i used to believe it was a good thing for other countries economies that they got US business, however, lately as I've seen many of my friends and coworkers across the country out of work due to business being taken off-shore, manufacturing plants closed down here and taken overseas, only to have those goods sold back to us at the same prices, i have gotten quite irritated by it all.

this thread is spurred by the last Levi Strauss plant in the US closing it's doors, and also by rumors that Dell is bringing their computer support back from offshore, since it didn't work out so well.

what are your thoughts?

My Thoughts:

I think it's lame as hell for letting US companies do this. However, I don't think it should be stopped. I think US companies should pay some ridiculously large fee for the right to do it.

GonePostal

09-30-2003, 01:17 PM

Show me 1 company that nutures innovation (not some small to medium size company that manufactures generic IC's that anyone with some CAD software can produce effortlessly) that is moving their R&D overseas. Oracle's strategy is slightly different then oursourcing their R&D outside the US.
General IT jobs are being oursourced. That is a fact of life and it has happened in every other industry that it could happen. But until the world's engineering institutions catch up to the Western one's any meaningful R&D will be done on this side of the world.

GonePostal

09-30-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by mantis

I disagree with the above statement totally. Many of the top US companies now have R&D team overseas. It starts out with the "low tech" jobs, then it went on to "sustaining Engineering". Now, even the "advance development" are being transfer to overseas to countries like India. Microsoft being a perfect example.

Of course, most of the companies will still keep their "core" design teams in the US. However, I believe in the next 18 months, we will see more and more "Hi-tech/Engineering/IT jobs being transfer out to other countries.

After 10 years in IT/Software business. I'm actually thinkiing about getting a law degree now.
Show me 1 "top" US company with R&D overseas(meaning outsourced but even still design is still done in the US. While the manufacturing and related processes are done overseas)? Microsoft has not moved any R&D anywhere. They exclusivly develop their core packages and even most periferial packages at their complex in redmond. (This info was straight from the horses mouth). They did oursouce some tech support centers. Big whoop. Anyone can do tech support and that is why they are being outsourced.

Tryska

09-30-2003, 01:44 PM

GE off the top of my head.

edit - as apparently i only have to name one. :D

Saturday Fever

09-30-2003, 01:45 PM

Cisco Systems, Inc.

That's naming one.

MrWebb78

09-30-2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Trent_Steel
I think what this thread is getting at is capatalism isnt fair, but communism doesnt work, so what are we going to do?

capitalism is quite fair.

we all(for the most part), live in America, therefore, we all have the chance to start one of these business' and profit and prosper.

as far as haves and havenots, i know that havenots love to point fingers for not having, but ultimately it is their responsibility to acheive a higher status(pay scale, materials etc..).

it is not societies fault they are making less of a salary, it is not the company they work for's fault, it is their fault.

my 2nd point..

lets say i start a business, the entire goal behind business is to make money. now i can spend alot of money in production, and profit less, OR i can cut production costs and profit more. Gee, which one sounds logical?

3rd, if you are so upset at these companies(levi's), then the solution is simple, do your part to protest and stop buying Levi clothing.

Tryska

09-30-2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by MrWebb78

3rd, if you are so upset at these companies(levi's), then the solution is simple, do your part to protest and stop buying Levi clothing.

which is a key point.

it reminds me of something i remember from my last company - on our intranet there was a Q&A with the CIO. Someone wrote in a question asking why developer positions were going offshore, and why wasn't someone doing something about it.

he basically said - if you want someone to do something about start with yourself and exercise your right to vote - he then went on to say that recent administrations have made it in companies best interest to take jobs out of the states, and if we as citizens didn't want that to happen, it was up to us, to not vote those people into office.

i found this to be a brilliant answer.

GonePostal

09-30-2003, 02:04 PM

GE? They don't make anything innovative really. They are not a company that fosters innovation as driving busisness strategy. They make generic electronics that approach commodity status. So they do not qualify.

To my knowledge Cisco has not moved any R&D overseas. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Tryska

09-30-2003, 02:07 PM

OHHHHHH - i'm sorry - i didn't see the loaded part of your question.

i could care less about who fosters innovation. what concerns me more is the fostering of american paychecks.

GonePostal

09-30-2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
OHHHHHH - i'm sorry - i didn't see the loaded part of your question.

i could care less about who fosters innovation. what concerns me more is the fostering of american paychecks.
Not loaded at all. R&D meaning that they actually make something of a scale that requires significan intellect. As I stated before most of the jobs that are being exported are the ones that are the "manual" labour of the hightech world. (tech support, call centers, low level design which is mostly software) True "high" tech jobs are here to stay for the time being. They just can't compete with us on this level yet, and thus the price under-cutting. If you said something like Intel has moved their chipset design team overseas then I would have to reconcider my position. As of yet very few if any R&D is being moved overseas (unless it is of the nature that the average person could do it with the extensive help that CAD software lends). My arguement lends itself much more to hardware/IP based companies.

mantis

09-30-2003, 07:11 PM

Show me 1 "top" US company with R&D overseas(meaning outsourced but even still design is still done in the US. While the manufacturing and related processes are done overseas)? Microsoft has not moved any R&D anywhere. They exclusivly develop their core packages and even most periferial packages at their complex in redmond. (This info was straight from the horses mouth). They did oursouce some tech support centers. Big whoop. Anyone can do tech support and that is why they are being outsourced

HP (Compaq) and Cisco all have design team overseas. I just finished working on a project with a Cisco Gateway/Gatekeeper design team in Korea. It's a small design team, but that would have been 60 jobs for people here.

Microsoft's core design team will always be in the US. However, they have small design teams here there all over. These are not code monkeys. These are true development teams.

As far as the field you are in..I'm assuming IC design and semiconductors. I can't aruge with you there because I have no first hand knowledge and it's not my field.

Not loaded at all. R&D meaning that they actually make something of a scale that requires significan intellect. As I stated before most of the jobs that are being exported are the ones that are the "manual" labour of the hightech world. (tech support, call centers, low level design which is mostly software) True "high" tech jobs are here to stay for the time being. They just can't compete with us on this level yet, and thus the price under-cutting. If you said something like Intel has moved their chipset design team overseas then I would have to reconcider my position. As of yet very few if any R&D is being moved overseas (unless it is of the nature that the average person could do it with the extensive help that CAD software lends). My arguement lends itself much more to hardware/IP based companies.

I agree they cannot compete with us in the Hightech world yet. However, we must keep going forward. Some of these countries outside of North America are moving ahead really fast. Eventually, they will catch up to us if we don't continue to move forward.

mantis

09-30-2003, 07:29 PM

2000 is a very small drop in the bucket when you look at oracle's total software developer base. That and the fact Oracle's really the only one doing this. The motivation to move certain jobs offshore is not totally driven by cost. Orcale wants to create a business where they are always "developing". When one software developer sleeps in one country another should wake up and start his day.

I worked for Oracle for over 3 years. My opinion is that they are certainly not the only one who are doing this. I also don't believe it was not driven by cost. Almost everything is driven by cost. They made up this always "developing" story because they don't want to be accuse of moving jobs overseas. If they wanted to have people developing around the clock, they could have done that at Redwood shore. Plenty of Software guys likes to work at night. Heck, I used to not showing up at work until 11am.. but I don't go home until almost midnight.

MixmasterNash

09-30-2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by GonePostal
GE? They don't make anything innovative really. They are not a company that fosters innovation as driving busisness strategy. They make generic electronics that approach commodity status. So they do not qualify.

Hmmm, I think that you might be, well, talking out of your ass. GE is a huge conglomerate company but still employs over 2000 people in pure research. Cutting edge power plants, jet engines, etc. besides the nanotech, optics, and biotech, seem pretty innovative to me. Yes, they are also a huge credit company, but so are many big companies.

Other companies:
- Microsoft Research has large research centers in China and England.
- IBM Research has centers in China, Japan, Israel, India, and Switzerland.

The fact is that most research still takes place in Western, first world countries, China and India being the notable exceptions. However, how much longer will this be the case?

Berserker

09-30-2003, 09:27 PM

They should have to clearly state on there product packaging what they are doing. I could accept that. Let people make a decision. I want to look on the box and state where its made,ect.
Though most people are stupid cows, but atleast they would be leading themselves into the shoot(sp) or shute?

GonePostal

09-30-2003, 10:15 PM

You seem to grasp very little of what I actually said. I never said that there is not R&D outside the US. There is always "developers" and R&D branches outside the US for most large US companies. NO arguement. The majority of R&D is and will be done in the US/select european countries. I am arguing that the outsourcing of "IT" jobs are mainly in the lower 1/3rd of the tech industry.

All those areas of GE are moot IMO. They are not "IT" and barely high tech. Nanotech is in it's infancy that doesn't generate any real revenue and GE is by far not a leader in optics.

Again I state Vole does develop peripheral software packages outside the US. All innovation and development is done at Redmond. (ie pocketPC, windows, office, tablet pc's list goes on). All core/important technolgy is developed exclusively there. The "research" facilities you speak of in China are really not so. They have a few diffrent Microsoft branches there. The one software R&D section there is concentrated on localization (both traditional and simplified chinese). They also develop smaller "MS" products such as PinYin IME. My info is directly from a microsoft recruiter. Straight from the horse's mouth, I take his word over yours.

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 12:23 AM

I don't want to be cocky about it, but you called me out. How about from a Microsoft researcher's mouth? I'm guessing I know more of them and work with them more than you. How many of your professors are currently on sabbatical there?

The researchers in China do a lot more than internationalization. In fact, they do almost NO internationalization. That work is done under entirely separate groups.

Furthermore, a ton of MSR stuff never makes it to product development at all. They are really the modern-day PARC, doing a lot of fundamental research with little immediate payoff.

As for GE, you made a pretty blanket statement:"GE? They don't make anything innovative really. They are not a company that fosters innovation as driving busisness strategy." I tried to correct this false statement. I agree that their IT work isn't anything special.

Gyno Rhino

10-01-2003, 05:51 AM

GE is still a major force in the industry for R&D. They do all sorts of stuff that would blow your mind. But you're correct that they don't mess much with the IT field (who would?). ;)

Tryska

10-01-2003, 06:41 AM

these guys are right - GE is working on so many levels it's not even funny. if you think they are just lightbulbs and toasters then you haven't done your research. I worked for the company in one of their divisions that has nothing to do with lightbulbs and toasters - more like energy, turbines, and military aircraft.

VitalRemains

10-01-2003, 06:45 AM

we should be happy about this: the jobs that are leaving are leaving because they are low-paying.

Sorry, I can't. I just can't sit there and smile while **** is shoveled down my throat. Wont happen. Like I said and you don't seem to GET IT, our jobs are being sent overseas, the ones that aren't are employing illegal immigrants to do the work at a fraction of what we WAS being paid. And this is a GOOD thing? Absolutely not. It's taking Americans jobs right from them. And you can use the circular arguement "but they're creating other jobs". Right. But not enough for all Americans. And you keep missing it. What about the people who ALLREADY HAVE went to College for a good career? What, they're supposed to go back, dump $50,000 and do it AGAIN for a few years of work? And what about the Construction workers BARELY getting by eh? They're supposed to drop everything, sell their homes, toss out their Apprenticeship programs and live in their cars so they can go learn another career to work for 5 or 6 years? Work untill even THAT is taken away?

Tryska

10-01-2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Gyno Rhino
GE is still a major force in the industry for R&D. They do all sorts of stuff that would blow your mind. But you're correct that they don't mess much with the IT field (who would?). ;)

to be honest that's what GE Capitol is for - they provide IT outsourcing for the rest of GE and some other major companies too. they are also leading in the offshore outsourcing for many of the Fortune 500s.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 09:54 AM

rpffly

10-01-2003, 10:25 AM

Nice Paul.

If I may expand on that, I think most people have forgotten that these companies are PROVIDING us with the opportunity to make money. We are not entitled to anything. They are the ones fronting the money and taking the risk with an idea to make money. Whether or not a company decides to move their operation overseas is none of our business. They will succeed or fail with the decisions they make. It is up to us as individuals, as some have so nicely stated, to make ourselves valuable in the market place, that is, have a skill that someone or something (a company) would want to invest time and money in. It is up to us as individuals to acquire a skill that someone wants. If your one of the have nots, figure out a way to become one of the haves. Social and economic mobility is fluid in America and it is a reality.

Tryska

10-01-2003, 10:30 AM

it is also up to us as consumers to choose which companies we will give our hard-earned cash to, and which we won't.

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 10:44 AM

We also have every right to elect representatives to pass laws that mandate better working conditions, give us proper benefits such as healthcare and vacation, eliminate criminal profiteering, and tax the HELL out of companies that move operations offshore.

Additionally: Especially since public pension funds own huge portions of corporate America (CALPERS and NY's are some of the biggest funds in the world), we should be able to exercise better control over these companies.

I'm not so sure that consumer boycotts work so well. They're often used by the very same execs who want to move overseas as proof that they need to do just that. Anyway, the great majority of people have no idea what's going on.

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by rpffly
Nice Paul.

If I may expand on that, I think most people have forgotten that these companies are PROVIDING us with the opportunity to make money. We are not entitled to anything. They are the ones fronting the money and taking the risk with an idea to make money. Whether or not a company decides to move their operation overseas is none of our business. They will succeed or fail with the decisions they make. It is up to us as individuals, as some have so nicely stated, to make ourselves valuable in the market place, that is, have a skill that someone or something (a company) would want to invest time and money in. It is up to us as individuals to acquire a skill that someone wants. If your one of the have nots, figure out a way to become one of the haves. Social and economic mobility is fluid in America and it is a reality.

Don't think that corporations are doing anyone a great big favor, especially these days. There are notable exceptions, such as Malden Mills, who go to extraordinary lengths to help their workers under very difficult conditions. But they are notable because they are so rare. Job security is now largely non-existent, especially in the IT and other non-union fields.

The companies say they don't owe us anything, but we sure as hell don't owe them anything either.

Social and economic mobility is overhyped and does not exist to the extent that you'd like to believe. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor. You hear about the success stories because they are RARE and interesting.

Tryska

10-01-2003, 10:57 AM

word mix......and you're right, exercising your right to vote, as i mentioned before, will do more to fashion the kind of country you want to live in, than anything else will.

rpffly

10-01-2003, 11:02 AM

1. How is taxing the hell out of a comany going to help anyone, especially the consumer - who pays for products the comany provides, which in turn pays the salary of the employees.

2. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor is exactly the kind of attitude that can make that statement true.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 11:18 AM

rp - that's a prevailing attitude - that somehow what someone else earns or makes belongs to all of us.

So, we need to pass laws to make sure we all get our fair share, since we are apparently incapable of going out and earning it in the marketplace.

We are helpless sheep, and need to government to step in and make sure someone takes care of us.

Note the use of the word 'give'. 'Give' us proper health benefits. How about you go out and EARN them?

Note the use of the word 'control'. We need to 'control' these companies. If you want to control them, how about you go buy some stock in them, then?

But, then, that would require personal responsibility, wouldn't it?

And you need the government to take care of you.

PowerManDL

10-01-2003, 11:22 AM

Yay government!

:clap:

Neil

10-01-2003, 11:25 AM

Nice, Paul.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 11:29 AM

I'm waiting for the day the government has a program where they will send a highly trained expert to my house to tie my shoes.

Hey - that might solve the problem with companies moving jobs offshore! We could hire them to tie everyones' shoes!

I should run for office.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 11:31 AM

Of course, we would have to ban loafers.

They would put people out of work.

Loafers are clearly un-American.

Neil

10-01-2003, 11:38 AM

lmao

MrWebb78

10-01-2003, 12:01 PM

you might be run out of business by my velcro company

Relentless

10-01-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by MixmasterNash
Globalization is good. Unless you're an American worker. Then you're screwed.

Specifically, I can't see much reason for the US to retain any of the IT industry. There's very little innovation, and everything is made offshore already. Content creation (porn!) and services (local sys admins, in this case) are where the US will retain employment. Everything else is iffy. Developers, designers, and tech support will all leave.

Can anyone argue that we should keep the IT industry? I'm not sure that we want it. Just like we've moved past the agricultural and manufacturing eras into IT, I think we need to move onto biologicals and nano-tech. Which means a boatload of gov't money for that.

Anyway, we really need to kill off the entire MBA/CEO/business oligarchy thing. That would solve a lot of problems. And I have yet to meet an MBA that isn't greedy. Greedy and stupid is one thing, and can't really do much damage, but smart and greedy and we're in big trouble.

Dude, have you been reading Neal Stephenson?

"America is good at the 3 M's... movies, music and microcode (software). That, and high speed pizza delivery. "

:D:D

And Paul... More people need to see your point about not having a RIGHT to a job.

America is a meritocracy, for the most part... if you have talent, drive, ambition, etc., you can carve out a chunk for yourself. If you sit back and expect life to be unfolded for you -- well, you get what you have coming to you.

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Callahan
Dude, have you been reading Neal Stephenson?

"America is good at the 3 M's... movies, music and microcode (software). That, and high speed pizza delivery. "
:D:D

Yeah, not for a while, though I just bought his new book, Quicksilver. Not great literature by any means, but fun as heck.

I was thinking about becoming a Hacker-Samurai, but then I realized that becoming a Samurai is quite adequate.

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
rp - that's a prevailing attitude - that somehow what someone else earns or makes belongs to all of us.

So, we need to pass laws to make sure we all get our fair share, since we are apparently incapable of going out and earning it in the marketplace.

We are helpless sheep, and need to government to step in and make sure someone takes care of us.

Note the use of the word 'give'. 'Give' us proper health benefits. How about you go out and EARN them?

Note the use of the word 'control'. We need to 'control' these companies. If you want to control them, how about you go buy some stock in them, then?

But, then, that would require personal responsibility, wouldn't it?

And you need the government to take care of you.

Hahah. It's SOOOOOOOOO funny when children don't have healthcare. It's awesome when Charles Grasso apoints board members who pay him $140 million dollars a year. It's so great that Dick Cheney is still being compensated by Haliburton THIS YEAR while they are giving the company multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

If you don't see the problem now, then you never will.

The truly libertarian view you espouse is a sad, sorry and unrealistic one held by the unfortunate middle class. And the rich are laughing. Laughing that they've convinced people that substandard healthcare, no vacation, getting "downsized" and outsourcing American jobs are good for the economy. And laughing hardest of all that they've managed to convince many in the middle class to support these ideas to THEIR OWN DETRIMENT.

How many examples of this foolishness do you want me to cite? 1, 2, 40, or 3 million (as in lost jobs)?

(1) The governor of Alabama proposed a highly progressive tax referendum that would lower taxes on the majority of voters, especially the poor who suffer under perhaps the most regressive tax system in all 50 states. Through the use of clever advertising, the business class managed to convince a majority of voters to reject the referendum.

(2) The national Republican party has managed to convince the nation that the estate tax is unfair and bad by calling it the "death tax." Poor farmers worth $5 million dollars. Boo hoo. A Democrat proposed rasing the exemption to $100 million dollars. ONE HUNDRED MILLION. It was still shot down. Gee, do you think that it was perhaps because those few hundred families worth more than $100 million have extremely undue influence on the govm't?

(3) For some reason, arguments about increasing the taxes on the top 1% fail horribly. Why? Something like 19% of the electorate think that they are IN the top 1%, and a further 20% think that they will be in their lifetimes. So by campaigning against tax cuts for the super-rich the Democrats stupidly allienate 40% of the electorate. This is the Dems own fault, but again, it is the Republicans relying on the unwittingness of the electorate to help the rich.

(4) Math. Americans are not good at math. Especially statistics. Karl Rove chuckles with glee at our poor SAT scores, because he knows that we don't understand the difference between averages and medians. The so called $2000 average tax cut does not exist anywhere but theory-land. The great majority got a few hundred dollars while the wealthy got many tens of thousands.

I'll stop here, but let me know as I can continue all day.

Always, the rich are laughing all the way to the bank. And you poor schulbs are happy to carry them on your shoulders.

And you're happy with this?

Spartacus

10-01-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by VitalRemains

Sorry, I can't. I just can't sit there and smile while **** is shoveled down my throat. Wont happen. Like I said and you don't seem to GET IT, our jobs are being sent overseas, the ones that aren't are employing illegal immigrants to do the work at a fraction of what we WAS being paid.

i'm not arguing with that. I GET that jobs go overseas. i just think its a good thing, as described before.

And this is a GOOD thing? Absolutely not. It's taking Americans jobs right from them. And you can use the circular arguement "but they're creating other jobs". Right. But not enough for all Americans.

paul addressed this well, but also:
not creating enough jobs??? if this was true the US unemployment rate would be high. its not. we have one of the lowest unemployment rates, despite the fact that the economy isn't all that strong.

And you keep missing it. What about the people who ALLREADY HAVE went to College for a good career? What, they're supposed to go back, dump $50,000 and do it AGAIN for a few years of work?

it might be possible you wasted your college time on a dead-end degree. oops. try planning ahead. in reality, you don't need a new bachelor's every time you get laid off. might need to take a class to learn about a new area. lots of people do this even if they don't lose their jobs.

iAnd what about the Construction workers BARELY getting by eh? They're supposed to drop everything, sell their homes, toss out their Apprenticeship programs and live in their cars so they can go learn another career to work for 5 or 6 years? Work untill even THAT is taken away?

? explain how construction work is going to get sent overseas. we are going to ship mile-long sections of highway or completed house from china?

************
increased trade and development of our trading partners means people with skills and consumers are better off (not to mention people who used to live in mud huts in the otehr countries.).
it can reduce income for people without any job skills, and increase income inequality. the solution isn't to stop trading with other countries, its to have a tax system that takes *some* (note that most of the economic gains in the last two decades have gone to the top 20% i think) of the gains that the rich get and ensure education is availible to everyone.

ryan1117

10-01-2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Spartacus

.....it might be possible you wasted your college time on a dead-end degree. oops. try planning ahead...
How can you put that on him?

The state of each job sector isn't exactly crystal-clear for 4 years down the road.(or more like 4.5-5 considering when you apply)

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 01:55 PM

Hahah. It's SOOOOOOOOO funny when children don't have healthcare. It's awesome when Charles Grasso apoints board members who pay him $140 million dollars a year. It's so great that Dick Cheney is still being compensated by Haliburton THIS YEAR while they are giving the company multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

** Are any of those things a result of a violation of a law, or someones' property rights? Children have no right to health care, and the fact they don't have it doen't make it OK to take my money by force (which is what taxes are) and give it to them. There is another solution, but your big fat government gets in the way. Grasso did absolutley nothing wrong - it was not his doing alone that made him wealthy, and if you were paying attention, he is voluntarily forfieting a HUGE sum of money that he has every right to claim. Cheney's relationship with Haliburton disgusts me, but has no relevance - it actually points to me being correct, since giving the government more power over your life is what leads to that corruption.

If you don't see the problem now, then you never will.

** I clearly see the problem. Most people are sheep.

The truly libertarian view you espouse is a sad, sorry and unrealistic one held by the unfortunate middle class. And the rich are laughing. Laughing that they've convinced people that substandard healthcare, no vacation, getting "downsized" and outsourcing American jobs are good for the economy. And laughing hardest of all that they've managed to convince many in the middle class to support these ideas to THEIR OWN DETRIMENT.

** Right. I suggest you do some reading regarding Libertarianism. Start with The Road to Serfdom.

How many examples of this foolishness do you want me to cite? 1, 2, 40, or 3 million (as in lost jobs)?

**Again, you seem to think having a job is a right.

(1) The governor of Alabama proposed a highly progressive tax referendum that would lower taxes on the majority of voters, especially the poor who suffer under perhaps the most regressive tax system in all 50 states. Through the use of clever advertising, the business class managed to convince a majority of voters to reject the referendum.

** So, the poor are too stupid to vote right? Perhaps you should do it for them.

(2) The national Republican party has managed to convince the nation that the estate tax is unfair and bad by calling it the "death tax." Poor farmers worth $5 million dollars. Boo hoo. A Democrat proposed rasing the exemption to $100 million dollars. ONE HUNDRED MILLION. It was still shot down. Gee, do you think that it was perhaps because those few hundred families worth more than $100 million have extremely undue influence on the govm't?

** Two arguments here - one is the validity of the estate tax. I think it's wrong, for no other reason thna it is the removal of property from an owner by force. I'm sure you will disagree, but that's a matter of right/wrong, and really doesn't debate well. Secondly, the undue influence on government is EXACTLY why the government should have less power, not more, as you wish.

(3) For some reason, arguments about increasing the taxes on the top 1% fail horribly. Why? Something like 19% of the electorate think that they are IN the top 1%, and a further 20% think that they will be in their lifetimes. So by campaigning against tax cuts for the super-rich the Democrats stupidly allienate 40% of the electorate. This is the Dems own fault, but again, it is the Republicans relying on the unwittingness of the electorate to help the rich.

** Again, people are clearly too stupid. Could be people see that there IS a shot at making it big, and they don't wan't to lose half of their income to redistribution of wealth if and when they get there. I'm not in the richest 1%, but I wholeheartedly believe they shoul dnot have their money taken from them.

(4) Math. Americans are not good at math. Especially statistics. Karl Rove chuckles with glee at our poor SAT scores, because he knows that we don't understand the difference between averages and medians. The so called $2000 average tax cut does not exist anywhere but theory-land. The great majority got a few hundred dollars while the wealthy got many tens of thousands.

** So?

I'll stop here, but let me know as I can continue all day.

** Please do. You appear to be agreeing with me.

Always, the rich are laughing all the way to the bank. And you poor schulbs are happy to carry them on your shoulders.

** The more rich people there are, the better off I am. You too, by the way.

And you're happy with this?

** with what? Current state? No way.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 02:02 PM

Clearly, we have a pretty big gap to overcome.

You think that somehow you have a claim to part of what I earn, because I earn more than you do.

I think that you have no claim to anything of mine, and I have no claim to anything of yours, assuming, of course, that neither of us is violating someones' property rights to gain our stuff.

You think, somehow, I, as a member of the middle class, am entitled to the spoils of those who are far wealthier than I.

I think I am entilted to what I earn in the marketplace, not what I can vote to take from the wealthy.

That's a pretty big gap to overcome. Kinda like trying to argue with someone who thinks it's OK to rob someone at gunpoint. If right and wrong are not static in a discussion, the valid points become moot.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by MrWebb78
you might be run out of business by my velcro company

You can't run the government out of business. We'll simply tax the hell out of velcro; it too is clearly un-American.

You velcro people are probably sending money to terrorists, anyway. I bet we can get proof from the British.

Tryska

10-01-2003, 02:22 PM

*decides to only wear birkenstocks*

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Clearly, we have a pretty big gap to overcome.

You think that somehow you have a claim to part of what I earn, because I earn more than you do.

I think that you have no claim to anything of mine, and I have no claim to anything of yours, assuming, of course, that neither of us is violating someones' property rights to gain our stuff.

You think, somehow, I, as a member of the middle class, am entitled to the spoils of those who are far wealthier than I.

I think I am entilted to what I earn in the marketplace, not what I can vote to take from the wealthy.

That's a pretty big gap to overcome. Kinda like trying to argue with someone who thinks it's OK to rob someone at gunpoint. If right and wrong are not static in a discussion, the valid points become moot.

Please note that I never, ever said we had a right to a job. Again, companies have no 'right' to having employees, either. It doesn't really mean anything in either case.

Let me make a tangential point:
'Right' is not the correct word to use. In fact, it isn't really what we should focus on. I believe it is a RESPONSIBILITY for those of us who are well off to help the less fortunate. Call is a Christian moral, a deist responsibility to mankind, whatever. Isn't it good to help those who are less fortunate? Why don't you want poor people to have healthcare and education?

A further aside:
The intersection of the religious right an the conservative economic class has always puzzled me. Pretty much everything that the conservative economic class is doing is completely antithetical to the teaching of Jesus.

Finally, here's the factual kicker:
Government regulations and programs can be economically beneficial. It's far more efficient to have preventative medicine provided by the government to everyone than it is for society to deal with high insurance resulting in part from emergency room-only care for those without insurance. Would you have doctors relinquish their hippocratic oath? They have a moral responsibility to help. We should too.

Here's an extremely recent example:
"Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7586-2003Sep26.html

"A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society. The findings overturn a previous report that officials now say was defective."

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that hell hasn't frozen over, what with this report coming from the Bush whitehouse. Are you against enviromental regulations too?

You're obviously dislike taxes. So do most people. I quote: "Again, people are clearly too stupid." In the venn diagram of economics, the intersection between stupid people and tax haters is very large! <skipping a couple steps...> QED, taxes are smart. :D

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 02:28 PM

We'll have to assign a committe to study birkenstocks to see if they, too, put Americans out of work, or if we need a specialist unit in the Federal Footwear Assistance Administration.

Oh, and Mixmaster, I've decided that whatever income group you belong to should foot (ha ha) the bill for this new administration, since you unfairly are tying your own shoes. I'll have to raise your taxes to keep Americans employed. You don't mind, do you?

Tryska

10-01-2003, 02:31 PM

*moves to canada where birkenstocks are permitted*

Relentless

10-01-2003, 02:34 PM

*reminds Tryska that we are even more heavily taxed in Canada than you are in the US*

Tryska

10-01-2003, 02:38 PM

i don't care - i just wanna wear birkenstocks and get out from under uncle meanie-pants.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 02:41 PM

Please note that I never, ever said we had a right to a job. Again, companies have no 'right' to having employees, either. It doesn't really mean anything in either case.

** You are clearly arguing as if you think having a job is a right, and government shoudl protect that right.

Let me make a tangential point:
'Right' is not the correct word to use. In fact, it isn't really what we should focus on. I believe it is a RESPONSIBILITY for those of us who are well off to help the less fortunate. Call is a Christian moral, a deist responsibility to mankind, whatever. Isn't it good to help those who are less fortunate? Why don't you want poor people to have healthcare and education?

** Ahh, the typical "You are mean spirited and selfish" argument. I, too, believe I have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. I do not, however, think that belief should be imposed by force. Why do you need the government to do it for you, when if you do it on your own, your help goes to who YOU want, not who I want, and your help more efficiently gets there.

A further aside:
The intersection of the religious right an the conservative economic class has always puzzled me. Pretty much everything that the conservative economic class is doing is completely antithetical to the teaching of Jesus.

** I have a feeling you and I might find a great deal we agree on with the hypocrisy of the 'Religios Right". As a non-christian, I'm oft facinated by them.

Finally, here's the factual kicker:
Government regulations and programs can be economically beneficial. It's far more efficient to have preventative medicine provided by the government to everyone than it is for society to deal with high insurance resulting in part from emergency room-only care for those without insurance. Would you have doctors relinquish their hippocratic oath? They have a moral responsibility to help. We should too.

** Really? So the socialized medicine in Canada is a better system than that in the US? What happens is health care becomes devalued. When that happens, there is less profit motive to get into health care, so the best and brightest who are motivated by that particular profit (money) tend to be drawn elsewhere. That reduces the talent pool, and eventually leads to worse doctors, and worse care (since you can't make money doing it.) So we all end up with substandard care. An alternative is out there.

Here's an extremely recent example:
"Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Sep26.html

"A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society. The findings overturn a previous report that officials now say was defective."

** Right. 'Significant health improvements and other benefits to society' Two things - one is that it's difficult to put a price on health improvements, second is that 'benefits to society' is a crock. My only other point is that if there were no government interferance, the market would regulate the environment just fine. Pollution is what? Damage to property. Which is actionable.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that hell hasn't frozen over, what with this report coming from the Bush whitehouse. Are you against enviromental regulations too?

** Federal regulations? Yes.

You're obviously dislike taxes. So do most people. I quote: "Again, people are clearly too stupid." In the venn diagram of economics, the intersection between stupid people and tax haters is very large! <skipping a couple steps...> QED, taxes are smart.

** It is impossible to tax yourself to prosperity.

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 02:42 PM

Screw it, let's just sell America and move on.

I want to be a citizen of TranGloboMicroDisneyExxonColaFordAOLStarbucks.

This way, they can just tell us what to buy. Swipe your credit card, loyal citizen-consumer! It's your patriotic duty! Choosing footwear is just way too difficult.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
i don't care - i just wanna wear birkenstocks and get out from under uncle meanie-pants.

Leaving The US is clearly un-American (yes, I know Canada is in America, but its a damn foriegn country). As such, I will impose a "Going to Canada" tax, structured much like the death tax.

Since the only reason you have anything to begin with is thru the benevolence of the US Government, we will take 99% of what you own at the border.

You may keep your sandals. Enjoy your health care.

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 02:48 PM

Also, I'm all for the hyper-libertarian ideal world of the post-apocalypse, a la Road Warrior. We can achieve this through nuculaer war, being overrun by zombies, or horrible virus. No rules, just right! And guns, lots of guns.

Seriously, I think it would be pretty cool. I'm gonna get a black El Camino and mount a .50 and start shooting the crap out of zombies. For all my liberal rantings, I'm a strict constitutionalist, and boy howdy do I like that 2nd ammendment.

Paul:
I'm glad to see you hate Christians too. Just kidding!!! As a practicing non-Christian myself, they have always been very confusing to me!

Tryska

10-01-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg

Leaving The US is clearly un-American (yes, I know Canada is in America, but its a damn foriegn country). As such, I will impose a "Going to Canada" tax, structured much like the death tax.

Since the only reason you have anything to begin with is thru the benevolence of the US Government, we will take 99% of what you own at the border.

You may keep your sandals. Enjoy your health care.

pfft. i'm just gonna tell border patrol i'm making a beer run. (with false identification of course)

Originally posted by Mixmasternash

Screw it, let's just sell America and move on.

I want to be a citizen of TranGloboMicroDisneyExxonColaFordAOLStarbucks.

This way, they can just tell us what to buy. Swipe your credit card, loyal citizen-consumer! It's your patriotic duty! Choosing footwear is just way too difficult.

*lmao* @ this!!

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 03:12 PM

We thought of that.

You may have your things back when you return with beer.

of course, you'll have to pay the beer importation tax (Canadian beer puts american brewers on the street, and ultimately in the Federal Footwear Assistance Administration). That tax varies by beer from 25% to 87%.

Tryska

10-01-2003, 03:20 PM

right. thanks for letting me know about that whole...things back when i return with beer thing.

(good thing the only thing i'm truly attached to are my birkenstocks. ;) )

Spartacus

10-01-2003, 03:48 PM

paul, while you're right that people are/should be basically responsible for their lives, and thus should have the freedom to control their lives, society is more complex that that. there will always be some people that enjoy different activities, and people will have various levels of income. in the past few decades though, the income disparity has drastically increased in the US, and basically the only people with growing incomes are near the top of the income scale. while to a certain extent they "deserve" all that money, its not necessarily the best way to run society. for various reason, including globalization, wage levels have drastically increased for the most skilled workers, and returns to capital compared to returns to labour for the economy has shifted toward capital. so those with higher skills and capital ownership have become more well off, even given a constant amount of work.

society is better, even for the rich, when income disparity isn't so great. income equality and absolute income both have a role. also, its rather narrow to say government always makes things worse. improving air quality, among a lot of other things (classic economic externalities) really have to be done by the government. obviously, market mechanisms for such regulation are often the best way to go (ie tradeable permits for pollution.)

so thats why i think the US tax system should be more progressive. while i don't think you'll agree, thanks for improving this thread

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 03:58 PM

I most certainly disagree.

The rich are a very small minority. And you think it is in all of our best interest to take more of their money and spread it around by force, instead of letting them do with it what they want.

Society is most certainly NOT better when that happens.

What happens when they (the majority) decide you don't need YOUR stuff, and they come take some more of it and give it to others. Will it be OK then?

rpffly

10-01-2003, 04:08 PM

Spart- Your forgetting that everyone as the opportunity to become "skilled" worker if they choose to.

Society has a big role in the way air quality can be improved. Look how the demand for hybrid cars is catching on. The public is starting to *demand* an alternative to an all gasoline powered vehicle. GM has dumped a billion (w/ some gov't assistance) into R&D for hydrogen fuel cells. There is no gaurantee that is going to succeed. (note gov't money)

The tax system needs to be based on fairness.

Spartacus

10-01-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
I most certainly disagree.

The rich are a very small minority. And you think it is in all of our best interest to take more of their money and spread it around by force, instead of letting them do with it what they want.

Society is most certainly NOT better when that happens.

What happens when they (the majority) decide you don't need YOUR stuff, and they come take some more of it and give it to others. Will it be OK then?

i support this, even though i would guess that when i get out of school i will be making a very good income.

you're suggesting that people have an innate right to what they produce, because the system that works best (capitalsim/private property) rewards people on the basis of how much they produce. i don't think those are connected. obviously people should be able to keep a lot of their income, but i think income distribution is out of wack in the US currently.

people who earn a lot of money can only do that in the context of a society. because of this, they owe something to the community as a whole.

Spart- Your forgetting that everyone has the opportunity to become "skilled" worker if they choose to.
to some extent, sure. but some people are going to end up on the bottom of the ladder, because someone has to pick up my trash every week, and build roads. moreover, a decent percentage of the population just isn't very smart, and grew up in a ****ty environment, which makes it pretty hard to get ahead. there is really no way to even that out. and while its good to maintain an incentive for them to work hard, i don't think society should **** on people just because they don't make it.

Society has a big role in the way air quality can be improved. Look how the demand for hybrid cars is catching on. The public is starting to *demand* an alternative to an all gasoline powered vehicle. GM has dumped a billion (w/ some gov't assistance) into R&D for hydrogen fuel cells. There is no gaurantee that is going to succeed. (note gov't money)

sure some hippies will drive those around, but people who drive giant SUVs around aren't all going to stop, and they put a lot of the pollution into the air. in this instance, i just think the government should institute a tax on gas per gallon equal to all the evironmental damage that one gallon of gas causes. then the market will set the right price.

The tax system needs to be based on fairness.
sure ;)

rpffly

10-01-2003, 08:10 PM

to some extent, sure. but some people are going to end up on the bottom of the ladder, because someone has to pick up my trash every week, and build roads. moreover, a decent percentage of the population just isn't very smart, and grew up in a ****ty environment, which makes it pretty hard to get ahead. there is really no way to even that out. and while its good to maintain an incentive for them to work hard, i don't think society should **** on people just because they don't make it.

****People get paid those "bottom of the ladder" wages because anybody can do them and there are alot of people out there not willing to develop a skill. And when anyone can do them there is no incentive to offer a competitive wage. When there is a small supply in the labor market for those jobs, then you'll see a competitive wage. I don't see where society is **** on people because they don't make it.

sure some hippies will drive those around, but people who drive giant SUVs around aren't all going to stop, and they put a lot of the pollution into the air. in this instance, i just think the government should institute a tax on gas per gallon equal to all the evironmental damage that one gallon of gas causes. then the market will set the right price.

****If you think hippies are the only ones who are driving these cars, then you really need to get out more often.
Do you harp on people who drive minivans? How about people who have big houses.

And the comment about how people owe something to society because society provided an environment for them to prosper is totally insane. Nevermind the fact that they sacrificed and worked their ass off. That has nothing to do with it at all.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 08:14 PM

Income distribution can not be changed by the state without creating a larger problem (assuming current distribution is a problem in the first place)

It isn't the role of the government to 'even things out'.

There already is a huge tax on gasoline. Do you know how much? Look it up. Wanna learn something interesting? Take a look at what gasoline taxes in Europe did to behavior (hint: deisels) Then take a look at how the unintended consequences of that actually make the environment worse than it would have been.

Spartacus

10-01-2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by rpffly
****People get paid those "bottom of the ladder" wages because anybody can do them and there are alot of people out there not willing to develop a skill. And when anyone can do them there is no incentive to offer a competitive wage. When there is a small supply in the labor market for those jobs, then you'll see a competitive wage. I don't see where society is **** on people because they don't make it.

i guess what i should have mentioned is that wages for the unskilled will not rise in the future, for reasons mentioned in this thread: globalization + immigration, both of which are going to depress wages in the industrialized world for low-skilled people. i just don't think everyone has the intelligence to work high skilled jobs, so bad jobs are never going to have higher wages. some guy with an 80 IQ and no particular talent isn't going to be able to cut it as an engineer or whatever.

people busted their ass in 1970 the same as today. the reason people doing that make a lot more money now, and unskilled labor makes pretty similar wage after inflation isn't because the hardworking smart people are working harder today. its because returns to capital and high-skill job wages have increased a lot, and low-skill wages haven't. so i think government should even that out (the variation in wage increases, not absolute income).

****If you think hippies are the only ones who are driving these cars, then you really need to get out more often.
Do you harp on people who drive minivans? How about people who have big houses.

i'm not really harping on anyone, i just don't think that pollution is going to drop a lot unless government puts a tax on polluting.

And the comment about how people owe something to society because society provided an environment for them to prosper is totally insane. Nevermind the fact that they sacrificed and worked their ass off. That has nothing to do with it at all.

sure their hard work had something to do with it, and they should be rewarded for it. but market price for their labor, set based on their addition to a firm's marginal productivity, isn't perfectly correlated with the amount of work they do. thats why i think its ok to modulate their incomes. there is something between communistic approach to wages and untouched free market wages.

Income distribution can not be changed by the state without creating a larger problem (assuming current distribution is a problem in the first place)
i don't think it would be that much of a problem. increase some of the highest tax brackets some, subsudize education and health care a bit more. done.

It isn't the role of the government to 'even things out'.
why not (other than its a libertarian principle :) )
at least in my view, this would make society a better place for everyone to live. so i think the government should, because i think government should act to make life better for its citizens.

There already is a huge tax on gasoline. Do you know how much? Look it up. Wanna learn something interesting? Take a look at what gasoline taxes in Europe did to behavior (hint: deisels) Then take a look at how the unintended consequences of that actually make the environment worse than it would have been.

however, they also use public transit a lot more. admitedly, part of that is europe is more urbanized than US.

also, government helps keep price of gas low.
here (http://www.redwood.sierraclub.org/articles/October_99/gasprice.html) is a link to some site that lists some subsidies and other stuff that gov does to keep gas cheap. (i don't agree with sierra club often, but i doubt those statistics are way out of line.)

I think my point about society was important. its not as if those with high incomes are off in the woods somewhere and a group of people are going over to them to try to shake them down. people with highest incomes are the brightest and hardest working people in society, but the amount of money they make is very influenced by other factors in society, when they were born (1900 vs. 1980), that they live in US not bangledesh, what technology exists. rich aren't making money in a vacuum. therefore i think what markets dictate someone should earn only be a guide for relative incomes, not taken as absolute. also, i said this:

you're suggesting that people have an innate right to what they produce, because the system that works best (capitalsim/private property) rewards people on the basis of how much they produce. i don't think those are connected. obviously people should be able to keep a lot of their income, but i think income distribution is out of wack in the US currently.
which i think is closer to the core of where we disagree. pure free market does produce the best total output. but why does that mean that that should be the way income is distrubuted? you're taking private property as a moral good, i'm saying its only an economic good. in practice this means i don't see it as "wrong" to tax someone with a higher income at a higher rate than someone with a lower income.

Paul Stagg

10-01-2003, 09:07 PM

Then we get into a moral discussion.

The tax code prevents the market from producing the best total output by essentially punishing those who earn the most. Taxes are a violation of your property rights, especially when the goal is income redistribution. If that's allowed, the market can't flourish.

You also bring up the concept of a common good, something I reject. Someone loses out if there is force involved, and redistribution of wealth by the government is just that.

I'm serious about taking the time to see what high gas taxes have done to the environment in Europe.

Spartacus

10-01-2003, 09:27 PM

i'm not arguing taxes are a violation of property rights. i just don't think property rights are god-given moral goods. they just happen to be economically useful. i also don't take GNP as a complete measure of a country's success. most rich people work too many hours to the detrement of their families and development as complete people. i woudl be for some of them working less. but i don't see taht happening with tax rate increases. I don't really think people are THAT much happier if their absolute income increases, but avoiding large inequality and ensure middle class living standards increase over time does have an effect.

you're arguing a supply side econ theory, and i don't think that most studies of supply side tax cuts show them having much effect on output via that mechanism.

you're not answering my argument that incomes and work don't correlate very well. thats why i think some redistribution is justified.

Spartacus

10-01-2003, 09:29 PM

also, i think government should work to make its people happy. you said it should protect property rights. why? you say complete prop. rts. ensure greatest output. so why should that be the guiding principle?

hey other people shoudl step in and stop this abortion of a thread

PowerManDL

10-01-2003, 09:59 PM

You all seem to be missing the point. Paul's not against *government* intervention so much as *Federal government* intervention.

If this were a series of communities enforcing these laws, that's one thing. But to have a powerful central government imposing these edicts is another issue altogether.

That's not what the Federal gov't is for.

VitalRemains

10-01-2003, 10:04 PM

i guess what i should have mentioned is that wages for the unskilled will not rise in the future, for reasons mentioned in this thread: globalization + immigration, both of which are going to depress wages in the industrialized world for low-skilled people.

Hmm. I'm interested in what you consider low-skilled. You've mentioned Road builders for one, so what is it you're trying to say? You think Construction takes no skill and is beneath you? Is THAT it?

i just don't think everyone has the intelligence to work high skilled jobs, so bad jobs are never going to have higher wages.

Tell ya what, let's see your "high-skilled" desk jockeys come out here in the real world for one day, we'll see if they can cut it doing "meanial low-skilled labor".

people busted their ass in 1970 the same as today. the reason people doing that make a lot more money now, and unskilled labor makes pretty similar wage after inflation isn't because the hardworking smart people are working harder today. its because returns to capital and high-skill job wages have increased a lot, and low-skill wages haven't.

Here you go again with "unskilled labor". Hey chief are you aware that it takes 5 years of Training to be a Plumber? And 5 years to Install Fire Sprinklers? Seems to me a person would have to be damn smart to accomplish that, and from personal experience, it's ALOT harder work then pushing buttons on a computer.

As for the wages never rising, actually they've lowered thanks to Capitalism and right to work status.

people with highest incomes are the brightest and hardest working people in society

Give me a goddamn break and get real. These CEO's screwing over the workers of this Country, the literal BACKBONE of this Country aren't the brightest nor hardest working they're the most crooked. Come out in the real world for once and see how life works. Bring along you oh so hard working CEO's as well, they'll I guaran damn tee it they'll be begging to go home by noon because they can't handle the work us "unskilled dumbasses" as you think can.

I'm done with you, you need to face reality and quit daydreaming.

Spartacus

10-01-2003, 10:41 PM

look, if you read my later posts, i'm for increasing taxes on those who make a lot of money to raise effective take home pay of working class workers. i think US worker s ARE getting the shaft in many ways. but i have a real problem with people blaming other who make more money (also americans are NOT going to have larger unemployment. just wages that aren't increasing if you don't have a valuable skill). the recent increases in the top earners in this country didn't happen because 1. they stole it (your position) or 2. because they started working harder (pauls') they fell into it, due to economic conditions. so i think some of that windfall should be used to pay for lower education costs, health care, etc. which help working class

Originally posted by VitalRemains

Hmm. I'm interested in what you consider low-skilled. You've mentioned Road builders for one, so what is it you're trying to say? You think Construction takes no skill and is beneath you? Is THAT it?

heh. i worked road construction a few summers ago. there is skill but really other than the foremen its not that hard to learn. you stay on the job, you pick it up. its not a "trained skill" which is more of what i'm talking about. more importantly, anyone can do it. high wages go to those who have rare skills/talents (doctors), or are much better than others at doing something that affects large amounts of money (CEOs)

Here you go again with "unskilled labor". Hey chief are you aware that it takes 5 years of Training to be a Plumber? And 5 years to Install Fire Sprinklers? Seems to me a person would have to be damn smart to accomplish that, and from personal experience, it's ALOT harder work then pushing buttons on a computer.

i don't know how long it takes to do those, nor do i know what they make. but really, don't go into something that takes 5 yrs to train for if it doens't make much money. but i am sorry for people that have been in a career for a while and it starts to make less money. that sucks.

"skilled" means holding a skill that is valued highly by the marketplace. plumbers aren't that. its more of a trade. its more skill than assembly work, but

As for the wages never rising, actually they've lowered thanks to Capitalism and right to work status.
wages are not going up or are going down because of what i mentioned above, the increasing returns to higher-skilled work compared to lower-skilled work.

Give me a goddamn break and get real. These CEO's screwing over the workers of this Country, the literal BACKBONE of this Country aren't the brightest nor hardest working they're the most crooked. Come out in the real world for once and see how life works. Bring along you oh so hard working CEO's as well, they'll I guaran damn tee it they'll be begging to go home by noon because they can't handle the work us "unskilled dumbasses" as you think can.

Tell ya what, let's see your "high-skilled" desk jockeys come out here in the real world for one day, we'll see if they can cut it doing "meanial low-skilled labor".

CEOs don't make more money because their work is less pleasant. they make more money because if they **** up, millions of dollars are lost. if joe 7.25 and hour ****s up on the assebly, a few bucks are lost. other jobs fall in between.

also CEOs work very long hours, especially on their climb to to top.

I'm done with you, you need to face reality and quit daydreaming.

i didn't mean to imply that working class jobs aren't hard work or don't involve skill. but they not as valuable in terms of wealth creation as a CEOs job is; also only a few very talented people have the skill to do those top jobs.

Spartacus

10-01-2003, 10:51 PM

also, VITALREMAINS, when i was arguing earlier that people are responsible for their own jobs i was talking more on a personal level. if you think your job is not paying as much as it should, you should move to a different job, because hwat i'm suggesting, while a better solution, isn't going to happen. i do empathize, but don't just complain if you don't like your situation.

MixmasterNash

10-01-2003, 11:07 PM

Okay, you want to talk about the price of gas? How about we factor in the cost of two wars in the past 15 years to stabilize the main oil producing region. Admitedly, the first one was free, in money terms, but tell that to the families of the dead soldiers. And Iraq today? A billion a week? Yes, let's talk about the real cost of gasoline.

Libertarians never want to take real external costs into account.

Here are a few ideas for increasing fuel efficiency:
(1) $1 increase per gallon on both gas and diesel, paid directly into a fund to pay off the war in Iraq.
(2) Highly progressive taxes by vehicle weight. How about an exponentially increasing tax for every lb of weight over 3000?
(3) Major tax rebates for public transportation and car alternatives. If the average commuter drive X miles a day, I want to pay people who drive less, take public, or bike to work.

Don't you think that this would usher rapid adption of lightweight vehicles, efficient hybrids, and public transport?

Paul is right, gas taxes, among other things, pushed Europe to diesel. But they're also driving small cars, not ridiculous penis-replacement SUV monsters. You just need the right tax system.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 06:46 AM

That's a completely false statement RE: Libertarians. Again, do some reading.

I do indeed consider the costs involved in 'protecting US interests' in the middle east. Thing is, that subject IS different from what I'm trying to point out - that raising the tax on gasoline had unintended consequenses in Europe.

(1) We are up a creek on this one. I don't know the solution. In general, I prefer use taxes over 'progressive' taxes (because it gives the individual the choice.) I think the situatioin in iraq is a mess, and is the result of too much power being held by the Federal Government, and people, in general, being stupid sheep. the % of people who think that Iraq used WMD on US troops is astounding. The % that think Saddam was directly involved inthe 9/11 attack is even more astounding.

(2) Again, given the choice between that and an income tax, I'll take it. It again gives the individual a choice. You need to consider the effect on the economy though - shipping is a big deal in the US, and this would increase costs pretty substantially.

(3) Not necessary, since they are choosing not to pay the higher gasoline taxes/vehicle taxes.

No, this would not necessarily usher in what you say. It artificially hampers what the market will do on its own (which could slow development of alternatives while we scramble to use existing technology instead of take the time to develop better technology).

A large percentage of cars in Europe are diesels. My question was, what did that do to the two things the gas tax was supposed to help (environment and fuel usage)? Is that necessarily better than what the market might have come up with on its own?

Understand, too, that the government affecting prices goes both ways - it's bad policy to artificially raise prices, its also bad policy to artificially lower them.

Powerman - thanks for reminding them that Libertarians are not Anarchists.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 07:07 AM

gah.....too much verbiage, not enough focus. (on my part)

VitalRemains

10-02-2003, 07:38 AM

look, if you read my later posts, i'm for increasing taxes on those who make a lot of money to raise effective take home pay of working class workers.

I don't care too much about them being taxed more, my concern is that aspect is companies paying the WORKERS what they deserve. They got the money to pay it, they just flat out don't.

i think US worker s ARE getting the shaft in many ways.

In dozens of ways. From having jobs sent overseas to illegals being brought into the Country to do the work at $4 an hour, lack of health care, declining wages, ect.

but i have a real problem with people blaming other who make more money (also americans are NOT going to have larger unemployment. just wages that aren't increasing if you don't have a valuable skill).

It isn't blame for THEM making more money, what it is is putting the blame on them for not paying the workers good money. As far as larger Unemployment rates they're at the lowest they've been in a LONG time. so yes we allready ARE having larger unemployment rates. Wages aren't increasing at all period.

i worked road construction a few summers ago. there is skill but really other than the foremen its not that hard to learn.

Depends really, some of these new highways they're building look pretty complicated. Besides the fact these guys doing this work are working under extreme heat and freezing conditions doing hard physical work.

its not a "trained skill" which is more of what i'm talking about.

You had to be properly trained to do it, no? That would make it a trained skill.

high wages go to those who have rare skills/talents (doctors), or are much better than others at doing something that affects large amounts of money (CEOs)

CEO's are crooks. They're better at stealing money.

i don't know how long it takes to do those, nor do i know what they make.

Not enough. Non-Unnion coming out of a 5 year Apprenticeship the wages are about $13 an hour. 5 years of Education and we only make $13 an hour? Guys with alot of skill and time in are lucky to bring in $18 an hour non-Union and that's after 20+ years of killing themselves.

don't go into something that takes 5 yrs to train for if it doens't make much money.

Someones gotta do the job. And it used to pay very well and provided a decent, honest living. Not everyone wants to sit at a desk or become a Doctor in their lives.

but i am sorry for people that have been in a career for a while and it starts to make less money. that sucks.

Yeah it does suck. Thank Capitalism.

"skilled" means holding a skill that is valued highly by the marketplace. plumbers aren't that.

Sure they are. Every home needs working plumbing as does every building. As is my trade Sprinkler Fitting. What I do stops fires and saves lives. Ask any Firefighter how valuable that is.

wages are not going up or are going down because of what i mentioned above, the increasing returns to higher-skilled work compared to lower-skilled work.

The wages aren't going up due to greed. Greed by Employers who want as much money in their pockets as possible.

CEOs don't make more money because their work is less pleasant. they make more money because if they **** up, millions of dollars are lost.

There goes their new BMW's and Beach front condos eh?

also CEOs work very long hours, especially on their climb to to top.

Cry me a river, they have to sit in their nice air conditioned offices extra. I feel more for factory workers working 12-16 hour days on their feet and Construction workers who put in long hours doing gruelling work.

i didn't mean to imply that working class jobs aren't hard work or don't involve skill. but they not as valuable in terms of wealth creation as a CEOs job is;

They're more valuable. Workers build Countries. Workers bring these CEO's their profits. If there was noone to do these jobs these precious allmighty CEO's would have to kiss their $50,000 cars goodbye, 5 bedroom homes bye, condos bye, everything goodbye.

if you think your job is not paying as much as it should, you should move to a different job,

No thanks. I enjoy my job actually. It's fun work, it's a challenge, and it provides great satisfaction knowing I am possibly saving a persons life. The pay sucks. There are no benefits. And I will continue to fight and do everything I can along with the other builders of America to get the respect, recognition, wages and benefits we've earned and we deserve.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 08:20 AM

Workers are paid a price set by the marketplace.

Changing that can ONLY damage the market.

An example:

I own a company, called Paul's widgets.

I pay my widgetmakers $10.00 an hour.

My company is profitable, and growing. People love Paul's widgets. My widgets fill a need in the marketplace.

I need to hire more widgetmakers.

the government comes along, and says $10.00 isn't enough, because it isn't fair that the CEO of my company (Gino), makes $750,000 a year and drives an expensive car and has a good looking girlfriend.

They say I MUST pay them $15.00 an hour.

Well. When I add everything up, if I pay them $15.00 an hour, I don't make enough profit to make it worth making the widgets.

Guess what happens. Instead of my workers making $10.00, they lose their jobs because I close up shop, or I move my production facilities offshore.

Not only do those people lose jobs, but a need in the marketplace is no longer met, as there are now not enough widgets, the price goes up, and less people can have them. PLUS, all the workers I laid off can't afford them, because they don't have jobs.

And someone said Libertarians can't see the big picture.

If workers are worth more money than they make, they are free to choose to find someone to pay them more. If they can't find someone to pay them more, then they aren't really worth more, are they?

We are NOT all worth the same in the labor market.

Gyno Rhino

10-02-2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
And someone said Libertarians can't see the big picture.

You can't. Imagine what would happen given one hundred... two hundred... three hundred years under that system. Think about it and tell me what you foresee happening.

I agree that IDEALLY that is the way things should be. But to make it that way in the real world, you're going to do nothing but push more into poverty and make the rich richer.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 08:56 AM

i agree with glen.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 09:09 AM

I think its a shame you give people that little credit.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 09:17 AM

people have done it to themselves. if there is a way for human beings to get over, they will.

life shows you that everyday.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 09:25 AM

So?

If they violate someone's property rights, it would be illegal and actionable.

The need for a strong central government is founded in two principles:

1) people can't do for themselves
2) people won't help others unless forced.

Both of those are untrue. Clearly.

You appear to be missing the distinction between Libertarian and Anarchist. There is a HUGE difference.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 09:26 AM

no i just don't underestimate human greed.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 09:38 AM

Neither do I. Again, I don't see how that a problem.

When we discuss values in the marketplace, it isn't just about dollars. Dollars are how we measure value in economic terms (so basically, everything has a dollar value), but all sorts of things continue to have value.

You are suggesting that a true free market would encourage people to not give, not help those less fortunate, and essentially screw their neighbor any chance they got.

I'm suggesting the opposite is true.

We can go back to Paul's widgets.

Is Paul's widgets better off or worse off if there is a talented, well trained pool of labor? Is Paul's widgets better off or worse off if more people can afford my widgets.

What do you think Paul's widgets will do about that?

Using labor:

Paul's widgets pays $10.00 an hour. The workers think that is too low. So, they go across the street to Glens' mousetraps, where he is paying $12.00 an hour for talented labor.

What happens? Paul's widgets ends up with substandard labor or a labor shortage. Which means quality goes down or I can't meet demand. Which means I make less money, because Glen is now branching out into widgetmaking using my old good employees, and making a better widget that he can sell at a higher price.

I either have to meet the market price for labor, or pay the consequences.

A non-economic example.

It makes me feel good to help retarded kids. So I donate money and time to the local retarded kids charity.

I get value out of that, and so do they. That's how the free market works - if someone loses out in a transaction, the transaction won't occur. In this case, the value to me of feeling good is worth more than the money/time I give.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 09:41 AM

differently-abled. not retarded.

Gyno Rhino

10-02-2003, 09:44 AM

You are a good person.

I'm not so sure about the majority of business owners, directors, and planners.

The illegal immigrant situation ought to lead you in the opposite direction.

Business owners would rather pay an illegal immigrant a dollar an hour under the table than follow any regulations.

It seems that real life shows again and again and again that while the majority of people may try to live with honor and respect, the few that DON'T mess up the workings for everyone else. Under your system, those few will be able to mess things up even more.

Like I said, IDEALLY your system is beautiful. But it suffers from the same problem as communism in that it's IDEALLY perfect, but truly flawed. You just can't beat human nature. Human nature will destroy your system.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 09:46 AM

You don't like the term I use to refer to retarded kids. You know I own Paul's widgets.

You decide that you don't want to do business with such a meanspirited person, so you go across the street to Glen's mousetraps, and get your widgets there.

If enough people feel that way, I'll have to change what I say, or suffer for it, won't I?

The charity I'm involved with still calls them retarded, BTW.

Gyno Rhino

10-02-2003, 09:47 AM

As a side note, I don't like the term "retarded" either. That gives them too much credit. I prefer "friggin' retards".

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 09:49 AM

Business owners would rather pay an illegal immigrant a dollar an hour under the table than follow any regulations.

Absolutely! Why? Because they are both better off.

You are still assuming property rights wouldn't be protected. As long as no one can violate your property rights by force, the few people who aren't nice can't screw it up, and those who are nice, who think they are nicer than everyone else, can't screw it up, either.

Communism was flawed because it inherantly goes against human nature. It also relyed on force. A free market is created by human nature, and doesn't at all rely on force.

MixmasterNash

10-02-2003, 09:49 AM

Hardy har har. If Paul thinks that the so-called marketplace exists, especially for workers, then we've got some learninating to do.

It might exist but for collusion between companies to keep wages low. Case in point: H1-B/L-1 visas used to bring in cheap foreign labor to the tech industry, when there is a glut of available workers in the U.S., and when companies are making profits.

Also, it's completely ridiculous to say that we can't afford an increase in taxes during wartime. It is a sick and twisted lie spread by the Republicans. During WWII, Roosevelt saw any profiteering from war as treason. I agree.

Furthermore, we have thousands of soldiers in Iraq, many of whom are reservists. They have lost their income and their families are hurting. You're saying you can't pay an extra dollar a gallon at the pump when your neighbor is patrolling the streets of Bahgdad? The rich basically do not participate in the military in the U.S. Tell you what, either they start paying more or we start drafting their kids.

How about this? No tax on diesel. Less than 5% of commuter vehicles are diesel, while the majority of commercial transport is. Thus, shipping costs shouldn't be affected. Keep the tax on gas.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 09:56 AM

Mix, you are completely missing my points.

The reason the marketplace doesn't exist is BECAUSE of government intervention, which you want MORE of.

You also clearly don't know what a true free market is. There would be no such thing as a visa, for example.

You also act as if this glut of american workers are somehow owed jobs. They are not.

The wartime stuff is not pertinent to the discussion. I would have no problem at all with national defense taxation being based on the amount of property you own. I also thought I made it clear that I would favor use taxes over income taxes.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 09:58 AM

actually one of my oldest friends is some sort of babysitterr for mentally handicapped adults who live "on their own". he cusses me everytime i say the word "retarded."

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 10:04 AM

Anyone ask them if they care?

I'd bet they are more interested in finding ways to be as productive as possible, not what label people choose to give them.

Totally off topic, but don't you tink we spend WAY too much time making sure we have the right label, and not nearly enough time finding solutions for real problems?

Berserker

10-02-2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by VitalRemains

Here you go again with "unskilled labor". Hey chief are you aware that it takes 5 years of Training to be a Plumber? And 5 years to Install Fire Sprinklers? Seems to me a person would have to be damn smart to accomplish that, and from personal experience, it's ALOT harder work then pushing buttons on a computer.

.
Haven't read everything. But your wrong here buddy. I was a plumber. You can plumbing pretty quick, if you have some apptitude. Sure doesn't take 5 years, most states you can take your journeymans test at 4 years.
I agree its tough work and skilled. Is anybody claiming its not skilled?
There are unskilled hard jobs out there, that alot of immigrants/illeglas due. It keeps cost for us, but robs american jobs.
I've heard when it comes to picking fruit and produce the government doesn't go after illegals. Imagine what an orange would cost if picked by union? Not to mention there would be shortage in the stores and lots rotting on the vine.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Anyone ask them if they care?

I'd bet they are more interested in finding ways to be as productive as possible, not what label people choose to give them.

Totally off topic, but don't you tink we spend WAY too much time making sure we have the right label, and not nearly enough time finding solutions for real problems?

i personally like the word retarded. it's a great descriptive.

as for if they care or not - not really sure - i'll have to ask the one that always makes me hold his sticky special olympics medals.

on the other hand - i think if we didn't ensure that certain labels are thought of as utterly dergotary we would have much more abusive society.

Gyno Rhino

10-02-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Totally off topic, but don't you tink we spend WAY too much time making sure we have the right label, and not nearly enough time finding solutions for real problems?

Yes.

Reinier

10-02-2003, 10:51 AM

Give on ability and take on need

PowerManDL

10-02-2003, 11:17 AM

The only problem I would have with a full-on Libertarian system is that I think, at the macro level, it breaks down just as fast as Communism.

Think about it. Both systems are at either end of the economic spectrum....Communism having no private property, Anarcho-capitalism, which Libertarianism is only a few shades away from, having *all* private property.

The issue on the large scale then becomes structure. In Communism and socialist views, that structure is the central government. In the Capitalist stance, its the business/corporation. In either instance, you have a much larger, very powerful "social superentity" that is in control of the resources.

That's all well and good. The corporation obeys the rules of market forces. But what happens when sufficient complexity is reached? If the American gov't were all but abolished in its current sense, leaving only the barest national defense and foreign policy mechanisms in place, where would we be?

Just as did Communism, I think that Capitalism is ignoring how powerful greed is. Communism tried to eliminate greed, and it failed. Capitalism tries to exploit greed, and places power in the hands of the corporations. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Full Capitalism would have to be very dependent upon human maturity-- that is, that people would not become so obscenely greedy as to influence the market forces (which they very easily could. The super-corporations that exist today can do it quite easily).

So in that sense, it almost makes sense to have a moderate state present, just as a form of checks and balances. If there's only one giant, he can spend all his time stepping on the townspeople. If there's two giants, they'll fight each other more than they'll stomp on the town.

That's my cynical approach to human psychology and sociology at work. I'd love to believe that true Capitalism could work, but with our current means of production, education levels, and general tolerance of mass stupidity, I can't see it working.

Reinier

10-02-2003, 11:32 AM

Nothing cynical about it. Its completely realist.
People suck. Ants are much better than we are, they have a true society of solidarity and honesty.

There is not a tolerance of mass stupidity, there is a production.

If people would all be wise and mature, Marxism would be utopia and a marxist state would work. and id move there

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 11:41 AM

The free market would actually be centered on the individual, not the corporation. There would be no central structure.

Your point is valid in that as things are today, the corporation would immediatley assume that central role. Over time, that would erode. Or, as would be necessary, we ease into the free market, not do it in one fell swoop, and the end result, probably a generation or two removed from us, is a real free market.

Keep in mind how sweeping this change would be - how things are owned. someone would own rivers, someone would own lakes, someone would own all of the empty land.

And their property rights would be protected, and the market would bring resources to their best use. Over time.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 11:52 AM

matt - again you and i are on the same page. except you are always far more succint (and verbose) then i am. ;)

Tryska

10-02-2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
someone would own rivers, someone would own lakes, someone would own all of the empty land.

i don't know how you are okay with this, but to me it sounds quite creepy.

PowerManDL

10-02-2003, 12:40 PM

There's actually a good book out there that indirectly deals with all this-- its called "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson.

Its a science fiction book, but it takes place in an intricately designed society not too unlike what Paul's describing. There's no government of any sort beyond the local level.

There are however a series of "clans" based on the idea of concurrent jurisdictions; ie, there can be multiple sets of laws in place at any one time, with those laws dependent upon the person's clan. The clan, obviously, decides on the rules, mores and norms of its members.

The local governments are largely in place as a function of those clans, though some operate wholly independently. With that, there are also people that have no clan associations.

Even still, there is a central "authority" called the Common Economic Protocol, which is essentially an overarching Constitution-analog that all the clans and municipalities mutually subscribe to. As Paul noted, its based on property rights and the concept of restitution. There are no police as exist currently; that's largely a clan function. Criminal penalties are a function of both local and clan law.

Sounds nice, and I think that in practice, it'd be an awesome system. However, even the author notes that its a contingent of sufficiently advanced technology and social controls...its based on the idea of centralized nanotechnology factories that feed raw material to client matter constructors. No one wants for any material good, yet certain things (such as weaponry) are unavailable.

And even in this society, there's a schism between rich and poor. However, even the poor are better off than most of the rich in our society...so who's to say? Its an interesting thought-experiment in polycentric legality and true capitalism, in any event.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 12:50 PM

T- I took a class in grad school that studied Hayek and Von Mises (two of the people who explain how a free market works as I am attempting to describe.)

We spent the first quarter of the semester discussing nothing but paradigms and paradigm shifts. A lot of people couldn't make the shift to grasp some of these concepts. The idea of private ownership of everything IS difficult to grasp, since none of us have ever seen anything like that. One of the examples was the private ownership of radio waves - frequencies - instead of the way it is now, where the gov't doles them out.

You need to free your mind from the idea that the way things are is the only way they can be. Why would private ownership of lakes and rivers be so creepy? How is that any different from land ownership, other than the fact that none of us have ever seen it happen?

MixmasterNash

10-02-2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Mix, you are completely missing my points.

The reason the marketplace doesn't exist is BECAUSE of government intervention, which you want MORE of.

You also clearly don't know what a true free market is. There would be no such thing as a visa, for example.

I've taken plenty of economics courses, and I know what free markets are.

Riddle me this: Microsoft. Standard Oil. AT&T. What do these three have in common?

You're saying that these were made to be monopolies by the government? Hardly. They used illegal and unethical business practices to destroy the free market. Government had to step into to restore some semblance for a marketplace.

What about the aircraft industry? Boeing is the only commercial producer of large commercial jets. It is that way because of various governmental policies, to be sure, but primarily because of the economies of scale required to produce aircraft. It has to be so because Airbus is a government jobs program with no profit motive. Thus, there is NO free market for aircraft. Good or bad, it just isn't.

I can name dozens of other commodities and products that do not have a free market. Some are due to governmental intervention but many are not.

Finally, this: I am all for free markets!!! I want to quash trade tarrifs and especially end farm subsidies.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 01:56 PM

if any of those companies broke a law or violated someone's property rights, in the free market I'm talking about, the government would take action.

By definition, the government 'stepping in' alters the market, making it not free.

Your arcraft example is an excellent argument. For my point.

You are making it sound like I think the current US marketplace is free. It is not. It's more free than anywhere else, certainly, but not free.

You have to make the paradigm shift to see things without ANY government intervention. Really think about how that would work. Think about what you think would go wrong, then apply economic theory about knowledge and resourses to the situation.

What you'll find is that the market can fix itself without any help.

Spartacus

10-02-2003, 02:04 PM

christ. i don't really have time to say much right now, but pual, you haven't given any cogent reason that "free" (in the sense that they are not interfered with) markets are some sort of moral good or fundamental right. why shouldn't the gov step in to promote better outcome? you're taking property rights as inherently good. please say why.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 02:12 PM

Excellent question.

You own your body, your person. It is wrong, for example, to kill you, or cut off your arm.

Well, that's where your property rights come from. If you are yours, everything you think, make or create is also yours. Everything you get in exchange for something you think, create, or make is yours. Everything you buy with what you get for thinking, creating, or making is yours. Just like your arm.

Unless you violate someone else's property rights to get it.

If you don't make that connection for some reason, none of what I'm saying matters.

This is one of the paradigm shifts.

MixmasterNash

10-02-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
if any of those companies broke a law or violated someone's property rights, in the free market I'm talking about, the government would take action.

By definition, the government 'stepping in' alters the market, making it not free.

Your arcraft example is an excellent argument. For my point.

So, uh, you're completely in agreement with me then? When companies break the law and violate rights, they should be stopped. Wow, we're on the same page. It doesn't sound like much of a free market if there are all of these rules and regulations though. In fact, it sounds pretty much like the current system.

There is no world government, nor will there be until we are attacked by space aliens. So, there is no global governmental body to control how the Airbus countries behave in relation to Boeing and the U.S. This is an external reason that it is not possible to have free market. The challenges in building large aircraft are an internal reason that building aircraft is not possibly a free market activity.

There are some things that are not possible with free markets (like building large aircraft), and yet greatly advance the progress of mankind. Government research for example, funds things that no company will touch. But as a result, we have the Internet, satellites, advanced medicine, etc.

Maybe this will make you happier: Just think of the U.S. government as a REALLY BIG company. It's charging us rent (taxes) to be a member (citizen) of its organization. Hey, if we don't like it, we can just buy into a competing company. I hear Tadjikistan has really great prices. However, it's also a business that's owned very equitably, has GREAT financial oversight, and decent health programs for old folks.

Think about this: A report was released that there was $85 billion dollars in government waste over the past ten years. Sounds pretty damn good to me. That's like a single Enron or Worldcom in a bad week. Considering the U.S. government is the largest organization in the world, financially speaking, it has a pretty good track record. I trust civil servants a lot more than I trust the guys running the NYSE.

MixmasterNash

10-02-2003, 02:34 PM

Also, the somebody owns everything idea is ridiculous. Who owns air and water? Who owns shakespeare's works? Will companies start charging me to drive down the street or go to the park?

When the air in my house is full of pollutants, I just accept it? I'm not buying anything from the chemical plant. We have no business transactions. Am I supposed to pay them to stop polluting? The air isn't my property either.

But! They're are harming my body (my property) and so government will step in to stop them. With... environmental regulations! Yeehaw!

These ideas seem to be thought of as a world where everyone lives in a log cabin with a hunting rifle in the woods, 10 miles away from their neighbor, and everyone is happy, white, middle class and Christian. Because that's the only way this libertarian mindset would work. I hear that they picked New Hampshire to be the launch pad for the libertarian revolution. Let's try it out there first, so we cna have a good laugh without actually messing anything up.

Spartacus

10-02-2003, 02:37 PM

#1. people are paid what the market says they are worth. simple as that. are you arguing with that assertion? company X pays their lawyer salary of 200,000 a year and their janitor 20,000 a yr because those are the minimum amount of pay required to hire a person with enough talent and skill to fulfill those jobs.

#2
youre saying a non-capitalistic society would be better. without capitalism, economy implodes. look at any non-capitalistic country (USSR). its disaster. without the work of the CEOs etc, the companies would not run, people wouldn't get their paychecks, stores would run out of goods. capitalism, with government supervision, maximises output. the same amount of "work" (meaning effort, hour spent working) might be done, but not as much stuff would be produced.

i'm saying capitalism is to blame, thats why we need government to step in a fix some of these problems (see my arguent with paul.) by taxing wealthier individuals, it makes up for the economic factors which are causing lower wages.

#3
if you are doing something and get more fulfillment out of it, and decide that the enjoyment you get out of it outweigh the lower pay, then don't complain about it. you had the same options as other people, and you chose enjoyment over a big paycheck.

many people have hobbies, which are those activities which people enjoy or get fullfillment from that AREN'T valuable to the market. there is overlap.

#4 the question of why wages are lower. you say the elites are greedy. the thing is, they have ALWAYS been greedy. why are wages going down now? becuase of competition with 3rd world, and increased technology. ceos have always been trying to find the lowest wages. textiles used to be produced in the northeast. they moved to the low-wage south early this century i think, and when wages their increased, moved them to places like korea a few decades ago. CEOs maximise shareholder profits. stopping this (by increasing US wages) causes a number of economic problems, like higher unemployment, and inefficient production. thats why i think my solution to this problem is better than yours (my solution is discussed in #2).

are CEOs and other high paid people STEALING from working class? no. due to economic forces out of teh control of either group, wages are down.

Originally posted by VitalRemains

I don't care too much about them being taxed more, my concern is that aspect is companies paying the WORKERS what they deserve. They got the money to pay it, they just flat out don't.

The wages aren't going up due to greed. Greed by Employers who want as much money in their pockets as possible.

Depends really, some of these new highways they're building look pretty complicated. Besides the fact these guys doing this work are working under extreme heat and freezing conditions doing hard physical work.

Sure they are. Every home needs working plumbing as does every building. As is my trade Sprinkler Fitting. What I do stops fires and saves lives. Ask any Firefighter how valuable that is.

Cry me a river, they have to sit in their nice air conditioned offices extra. I feel more for factory workers working 12-16 hour days on their feet and Construction workers who put in long hours doing gruelling work.

They're more valuable. Workers build Countries. Workers bring these CEO's their profits. If there was noone to do these jobs these precious allmighty CEO's would have to kiss their $50,000 cars goodbye, 5 bedroom homes bye, condos bye, everything goodbye.

see #1

CEO's are crooks. They're better at stealing money.

There goes their new BMW's and Beach front condos eh?

see #1 and #4

From having jobs sent overseas to illegals being brought into the Country to do the work at $4 an hour, lack of health care, declining wages, ect.

It isn't blame for THEM making more money, what it is is putting the blame on them for not paying the workers good money. As far as larger Unemployment rates they're at the lowest they've been in a LONG time. so yes we allready ARE having larger unemployment rates. Wages aren't increasing at all period.

Yeah it does suck. Thank Capitalism.

see #2

Someones gotta do the job. And it used to pay very well and provided a decent, honest living. Not everyone wants to sit at a desk or become a Doctor in their lives.

No thanks. I enjoy my job actually. It's fun work, it's a challenge, and it provides great satisfaction knowing I am possibly saving a persons life. The pay sucks. There are no benefits. And I will continue to fight and do everything I can along with the other builders of America to get the respect, recognition, wages and benefits we've earned and we deserve.

see #3

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 02:53 PM

So, uh, you're completely in agreement with me then? When companies break the law and violate rights, they should be stopped. Wow, we're on the same page. It doesn't sound like much of a free market if there are all of these rules and regulations though. In fact, it sounds pretty much like the current system.

** Again you misunderstand. Its the paradigm. There is one simple rule/regulation: Don't violate another persons property rights. There would be no environmental regulations. No Osha, no EEOC. No employment laws regarding age, wage, or discrimination.

There is no world government, nor will there be until we are attacked by space aliens. So, there is no global governmental body to control how the Airbus countries behave in relation to Boeing and the U.S. This is an external reason that it is not possible to have free market. The challenges in building large aircraft are an internal reason that building aircraft is not possibly a free market activity.

**Again. Shift your paradigm. What if it WAS possible?

There are some things that are not possible with free markets (like building large aircraft), and yet greatly advance the progress of mankind. Government research for example, funds things that no company will touch. But as a result, we have the Internet, satellites, advanced medicine, etc.

** And if the market were truely free, maybe we'd have stuff we can't even imagine. Government research isn't necessary except it has made itself necessary. Resources are best used in the pursuit of some profit. By definition, the government has no profit motive.

Maybe this will make you happier: Just think of the U.S. government as a REALLY BIG company. It's charging us rent (taxes) to be a member (citizen) of its organization. Hey, if we don't like it, we can just buy into a competing company. I hear Tadjikistan has really great prices. However, it's also a business that's owned very equitably, has GREAT financial oversight, and decent health programs for old folks.

**Actually, that's the necessary paradigm for communism. The individual doesn't have any property rights, his body belongs to the state.

Think about this: A report was released that there was $85 billion dollars in government waste over the past ten years. Sounds pretty damn good to me. That's like a single Enron or Worldcom in a bad week. Considering the U.S. government is the largest organization in the world, financially speaking, it has a pretty good track record. I trust civil servants a lot more than I trust the guys running the NYSE.

** depends on how you define waste. did they mention how much the US government creates compared to some large companies? You keep bringing up corporate misdeeds as if they somehow refute what I'm talking about. But they dont.

Also, the somebody owns everything idea is ridiculous.

**Why?

Who owns air and water?

** We'll define it. You own the airspace over your property, and you can sell it to others.

Who owns shakespeare's works?

** His heirs.

Will companies start charging me to drive down the street or go to the park?

**In utopia? Yes. Why is that utopia? because you choose which ones you use, and choose how much you pay. The current system, someone comes to your door with a gun and threatens to take you to jail if you don't hand over some money for roads and parks and other stuff you may or may not ever use!

When the air in my house is full of pollutants, I just accept it? I'm not buying anything from the chemical plant. We have no business transactions. Am I supposed to pay them to stop polluting? The air isn't my property either.

** If they pollute your house or hurt you, they have violated your property rights. That's actionable.

But! They're are harming my body (my property) and so government will step in to stop them. With... environmental regulations! Yeehaw!

** Not with regulations. With suits and criminal penalties.

These ideas seem to be thought of as a world where everyone lives in a log cabin with a hunting rifle in the woods, 10 miles away from their neighbor, and everyone is happy, white, middle class and Christian. Because that's the only way this libertarian mindset would work. I hear that they picked New Hampshire to be the launch pad for the libertarian revolution. Let's try it out there first, so we cna have a good laugh without actually messing anything up.

** For those who don't know, he's talking about the Free State Project. i think it woul dbe an interesting experiment, and I think the end result will be very positive. Unfortunately, as global as trade/economics are, you won't see the full benefit. Tehy'll never, for example, be able to legalize drugs in NH due to Federal laws.

Paradigm shift. It's hard to do. You keep saying can't, because. Try saying why not.

Spartacus

10-02-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Excellent question.

You own your body, your person. It is wrong, for example, to kill you, or cut off your arm.

Well, that's where your property rights come from. If you are yours, everything you think, make or create is also yours. Everything you get in exchange for something you think, create, or make is yours. Everything you buy with what you get for thinking, creating, or making is yours. Just like your arm.

Unless you violate someone else's property rights to get it.

If you don't make that connection for some reason, none of what I'm saying matters.

This is one of the paradigm shifts.

well mixmastermike answered this pretty well. i think we are probably on the same wavelength.

i think its wrong to kill someone because it makes people worse off; its bad for the common good. why do you think its wrong to kill someone? i'm guessing its becasue of property rights. your argument is circular. i'm promoting common good as an end, and saying government should act to promote that. eg set up basically capitalist system, impose taxes on things causing negative externalities, break up monopolies, ensure decent income distribution.

secondly, property rights are a service provided to the wealthy by the government. they are provided by society. somewhere a few thousand years ago, people set up government to protect their property. property rights are just a means of people keeping things they had in the past. no other reason.

"everything that you produce is yours." why would this hold even if you have some sort of body property rights? you DON'T just use "yourself" to produce, you use the societal means that exist. true you get paid based on marginal product, but that amount varies based on factors i mentioned in a previous post. income and work don't correlate very well. talent is also a gift that you are given upon birth.

i understand your paradigm, and it makes sense within itself, but it doesn't have any basis for existing, other than granting property rights as being fundamental

MixmasterNash

10-02-2003, 02:58 PM

Quick reply:
So when the chemical company gives me cancer by letting dioxins into my water I can sue them? Awesome. I can't wait. My kids will be so happy that they got a settlement.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 03:05 PM

i'd rather not.

air, water, earth are not anyones to own. i think it's a cold cold view to believe those things can be owned. i mean in that case, is the owner of as specific part of the ocean and the owner of the jetstream responsible when a hurricane comes in and destroys say the carolina shore? or better yet, who's in charge when your neighborhood gets flodded? is that you and everyone on your blocks responsibility to pay for the cleanup?

or do you blame that on the person who owns part of the ocean from which came the rain that came down and flooded your street? technically he/she violated your property rights, alongside that person who own the prevailign wind at the time.

that's bs paul.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 03:06 PM

And they will be convicted of an attempted homicide at the very least.

And the people responsible will be held accountable.

A lot of this hinges on personal responsibility.

Spartacus - your paradigm is that somehow rights come from the state. My paradigm is that the state gets its rights from the people. My paradigm is also that there is no such thing as a 'common good'. You talk about ensuring decent income distribution, for example. That means you violate someone's property rights (take their money) and give it to someone else for the 'common good'. But that isn't a common good at all. For at least one person, it's bad.

Paul Stagg

10-02-2003, 03:10 PM

Tryska - I don't think you understand.

Short answer: yes, it is my responsibility to clean up after the flood. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what is happening.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 03:17 PM

you're right, i'm totally missing that point.

especially when it comes to rivers and air. i can see perhaps owning the land AROUND a river. or at least renting it out, since NO ONE trule owns earth, no matter how much they may be deluded into thinking so.

libertarianism in my opinion, lacks a soul good or bad, and on that ground i can't connect with it. it doesn't resonate as true with me. ergo, my paradigm still stays unshifted.

so back to the others on your block - the ones who can't afford it are SOL? and they can either choose to live in their soggy house til it dries out, or move someplace else, and tough sh*t if they can't afford either of those options?

unless some kindhearted souls deign to give of their own property to help them out?

Spartacus

10-02-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg

they what is your justification for the state instututing property
You talk about ensuring decent income distribution, for example. That means you violate someone's property rights (take their money) and give it to someone else for the 'common good'. But that isn't a common good at all. For at least one person, it's bad.

you're saying my paradigm isn't valid because it doesn't mesh with yours. thats not an argument; we both agree they can't both be true.

yours is wrong because its circular. you didn't answer that. you need a justification for why my killing is bad in order for you to have necessary propery right inherent in people. why should state instutue property rights? you say because "they come from the people". you're not justifying property rights; you're trying to say we should recognize them as a fundamental aspect of existance. they are an abstract legal theory, and i don't see why they i should recognize them.

MixmasterNash

10-02-2003, 03:25 PM

Tryska, don't worry about it. You'll be dead from overwork and chemical pollution before the next hurricane comes around.

Labor laws are for wussies who don't want to work hard. The 9 year olds are the worst. Always like, "But I already lost one hand in the metal press," and other fluff.

And stop breathing my goddamned air while you're at it. MY air was blown down to you and is currently the 2' space around your head. I'm suing your ass of for increasing my C02.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 03:28 PM

*lights up a cigarette and blows it into nash's airspace*

try it muthaf*cka - i'm broke as hell.

Spartacus

10-02-2003, 03:31 PM

There is no world government, nor will there be until we are attacked by space aliens. So, there is no global governmental body to control how the Airbus countries behave in relation to Boeing and the U.S. This is an external reason that it is not possible to have free market. The challenges in building large aircraft are an internal reason that building aircraft is not possibly a free market activity.

**Again. Shift your paradigm. What if it WAS possible?
wtf?

MixmasterNash

10-02-2003, 03:36 PM

LOL, I hope they were American Spirits. Actually, blowing cig. smoke into my life is sort of unfruitful given that I'm already on tobacco road. Tamacco was just for starters. Now to combine pork and tobacco and I'll rule Eastern NC!

Man, I had good line using words such as "stop" and "blowing"... but I though that it would take away from our discussion. ;)

Tryska

10-02-2003, 03:47 PM

:drooling:

tomaaacccooooooo.......

EdgeCrusher

10-02-2003, 03:48 PM

Paul - I agree with you 100%
Powerman - Diamond Age was good, I would also recommend all of Neal Stephenson's other books (especially Cryptonomicon) except Snow Crash.

Tryska

10-02-2003, 03:48 PM

btwe nash - we need to discuss commercial pig-farming one of these days.

Reinier

10-02-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Spartacus
#1. people are paid what the market says they are worth. simple as that. are you arguing with that assertion? company X pays their lawyer salary of 200,000 a year and their janitor 20,000 a yr because those are the minimum amount of pay required to hire a person with enough talent and skill to fulfill those jobs.

No they are not. There are people who make ~300 million dollars a year. For that money, you could artificially clone a person with the perfect genes for the job and give it the best possible education and upbringing for it. There is no way that anyone, ever, is 300 million dollar a year irreplaceable. I know this is an extreme case, but of course the same thing goes for incomes lower than this too. Nobody has more market value than it costs to replace them and nobody cant be replaced for an elite elite salary.

Recently a book was published listing and explaining how many high salary jobs in Holland are completely unnecessary and how their sectors could function at least as well without them. Of course actually taking these out would cause new problems.
But that never had to happen, because the guy who wrote it was killed just before the elections. Not saying he would have healed the world, he probably even knew, as a prof, that the stuff he wrote about wasn`t practionable, but im just observing.

PowerManDL

10-02-2003, 03:53 PM

Reinier

10-02-2003, 03:57 PM

I know. but i wasn`t actually referring to athletes.

Spartacus

10-02-2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Reinier

No they are not. There are people who make ~300 million dollars a year. For that money, you could artificially clone a person with the perfect genes for the job and give it the best possible education and upbringing for it. There is no way that anyone, ever, is 300 million dollar a year irreplaceable. I know this is an extreme case, but of course the same thing goes for incomes lower than this too. Nobody has more market value than it costs to replace them and nobody cant be replaced for an elite elite salary.

Recently a book was published listing and explaining how many high salary jobs in Holland are completely unnecessary and how their sectors could function at least as well without them. Of course actually taking these out would cause new problems.
But that never had to happen, because the guy who wrote it was killed just before the elections. Not saying he would have healed the world, he probably even knew, as a prof, that the stuff he wrote about wasn`t practionable, but im just observing.

a lot of what makes someone valueable is experience. you can't just recreate that. if you couldn't why aren't people cloning jack welsh to run their companies? oh yeah, you can't.

also many people who make a lot of money own capital. profits are different than wages. profits (economic) are incentives, and go to those who inovate. accounting profits just go to those who own something.

Spartacus

10-02-2003, 04:03 PM

oh btw i think ceo salaries in particular are quite inflated, because of corporate governance problems.

Reinier

10-02-2003, 04:05 PM

I know about the experience factor. But id like to see what that billionaire manager does on a workday, and just where that part that any economics prof cant do comes in.

rpffly

10-02-2003, 04:21 PM

But that economics prof wouldn't be able to manage a P&L statement.

Spartacus

10-02-2003, 04:30 PM

mr. econ prof wouldn't have relationships with suppliers/clients, experience with the corporations specific business problems, etc

Gyno Rhino

10-02-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by PowerManDL
The only problem I would have with a full-on Libertarian system is that I think, at the macro level, it breaks down just as fast as Communism.

Think about it. Both systems are at either end of the economic spectrum....Communism having no private property, Anarcho-capitalism, which Libertarianism is only a few shades away from, having *all* private property.

The issue on the large scale then becomes structure. In Communism and socialist views, that structure is the central government. In the Capitalist stance, its the business/corporation. In either instance, you have a much larger, very powerful "social superentity" that is in control of the resources.

That's all well and good. The corporation obeys the rules of market forces. But what happens when sufficient complexity is reached? If the American gov't were all but abolished in its current sense, leaving only the barest national defense and foreign policy mechanisms in place, where would we be?

Just as did Communism, I think that Capitalism is ignoring how powerful greed is. Communism tried to eliminate greed, and it failed. Capitalism tries to exploit greed, and places power in the hands of the corporations. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Full Capitalism would have to be very dependent upon human maturity-- that is, that people would not become so obscenely greedy as to influence the market forces (which they very easily could. The super-corporations that exist today can do it quite easily).

So in that sense, it almost makes sense to have a moderate state present, just as a form of checks and balances. If there's only one giant, he can spend all his time stepping on the townspeople. If there's two giants, they'll fight each other more than they'll stomp on the town.

That's my cynical approach to human psychology and sociology at work. I'd love to believe that true Capitalism could work, but with our current means of production, education levels, and general tolerance of mass stupidity, I can't see it working.

Exactly what I was saying, only not half as well.

Kudos. Majt.

VitalRemains

10-02-2003, 11:03 PM

If workers are worth more money than they make, they are free to choose to find someone to pay them more. If they can't find someone to pay them more, then they aren't really worth more, are they?

Yes, they are worth more. I see where you're going with this and it wont work. Capitalist Businesses are not a determinate of ones worth.

You also act as if this glut of american workers are somehow owed jobs. They are not.

If they want to work hard and earn a decent living then yes, they deserve a job. They deserve it more then some illegal.

But your wrong here buddy. I was a plumber. You can plumbing pretty quick, if you have some apptitude. Sure doesn't take 5 years, most states you can take your journeymans test at 4 years.

Maybe right to work RAT companies are like that, however Unions are not and the Apprenticeship is 5 years in most Unions 6 in a few. And as Unions produce the highest standards for the Labor market 5 years of Training and Apprenticeship to reach Journeymen label is the correct way.

I've heard when it comes to picking fruit and produce the government doesn't go after illegals.

They don't go after them period. Capitalists like Bush LOVE illegals, it means more money for them.

people are paid what the market says they are worth. simple as that. are you arguing with that assertion?

Yes I am. When the market is paying them bare minimal and they can't survive off 1 job because the market states they are not worth a fair wage that is wrong and needs to be corrected.

youre saying a non-capitalistic society would be better.

Indeed I am.

capitalism, with government supervision, maximises output.

Capitalism maximises greed. It upholds profit before people and is a cancer and detriment to everyone except the CEO's and owners making a killing.

if you are doing something and get more fulfillment out of it, and decide that the enjoyment you get out of it outweigh the lower pay, then don't complain about it.

I never said it outweighed the garbage pay. I said I enjoy my career. Isn't that what it's about? Enjoying what you do? I enjoy it. I am good at it. I make my bosses ALOT of money. In turn I deserve fair wages and benefits. Why wouldn't I? Because of me they own $50,000 cars, big houses, boats on the lake, and everything else they desire. Yet it's OKAY they're making a killing while I starve?

you had the same options as other people, and you chose enjoyment over a big paycheck.

I chose to do that which I am good at. I chose to THINK for myself and not follow the pack. I chose an honorable career over a less honorable career of screwing people over, or sitting in an office all day. Like I stated above, I am good at what I do. Better then ANYONE I have ever worked with and even they admit it. The Employer I was with the last 2 years, I made him more money then he'd ever seen before. My jobs ALLWAYS came in ahead of schedule and below projected costs. In return I got? A joke of a wage, zero healthcare, and zero stability.

the question of why wages are lower. you say the elites are greedy.

They are greedy. It is a fact.

why are wages going down now?

Greed. Because Employers would rather ship jobs to Pakistan and hire 20 of them for what they could pay 1 American. Because Employers are hiring illegals at below minimum wage scales instead of paying American Citizens what they're worth.

CEOs maximise shareholder profits. stopping this (by increasing US wages) causes a number of economic problems, like higher unemployment, and inefficient production.

Wrong. This sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would pawn off. Higher FAIR wages would increase productivity, benefit all involved, and wouldn't harm the FAILING Bush economy any.

thats why i think my solution to this problem is better than yours

Taxing isn't the solution. The solution is increased standardization. There needs to be a set payscale from State to State. Say someone lives where a 2 bedroom home is $900 a month, gas is $2.15 a gallon and the cost of living is higher. MY solution is setting it up so they make a fair wage commensurate with such factors providing them with a package that ensures they are paid fair and recieve fair benefits.

Some States do that allready, where the wage scale to be paid is competitive with the Union payscale. Not right to work states, of course.That's my solution. A solution that's been proven to work.

are CEOs and other high paid people STEALING from working class?

Yes they are. To say they're not would be a lie. CEO's, as well as Owners, big business, whatever is stealing from the workers.

Reinier

10-03-2003, 12:20 AM

Paul, you stress property rights a lot...

if you make 500,000 dollars a year, and somebody else needs a wheelchair and an adjusted home does that person not deserve to get help from you, via tax? this is an extreme case of course. But you dont feel the weaker people in society should be helped?

Should there be no subsidized culture? There is a huge beautiful concert building near my town that could never have arisen without some tax money, and the artists in the orchestra were schooled off state money. and i love that. because i enjoy the music, and pure free market wouldn`t have done it.

Paul Stagg

10-03-2003, 09:32 AM

Two quick points -

T - your paradigm, that there has to be some sort of soul, is indeed the barrier. That's OK, though. Yes, those who need help get it from benevolent people, local government. Why should a techie in Atlanta be forced to help someone on my block who didn't have flood insurance? They all make more than you do. They all choose to live near the water. Yet you are forced to help.

Charitable organizations (in the case of the flood, the Red Cross and Salvation Army), are huge players, as are strong communities. My community pulled together. We are all helping each other out, and we'd get through it regardless of federal funding. See, you have to remember (and this is where left/liberal thinking folks miss sometimes) that since the Federal government would be taking FAR less money from us, there is more money for us to use locally.

Reiner - No one deserves my money. I can choose to help, or not. It is morally wrong for you to come take my money and give it to someone else, regardless of your good intentions. No, there should nto be Federally subsidized culture. If people value it, the market will give it to them. Again, why force people who DON'T want it to pay for it? Because somehow you know better?

Mocking my points will get you nowhere, but someone mentioned labor laws.

Take a minute, and really think through what would happen if tomorrow, we eliminated all labor laws. what would be good about it. What would be bad.

Now think about how a free market (a real free market) would address the bad. Build a little model, and see.

MixmasterNash

10-03-2003, 09:32 AM

I thought of another good example of what Paul's libertarian property rights isn't really designed to handle while listening to a bunch of really annoying car alarms.

Noise pollution.

How do you get your neighbor to turn down his stereo (after asking nicely) besides paying him? He's not hurting me (economically) at all, just annoying me. Or perhaps we will put a dB meter everwhere and charge based on sound eminating from ones airspace.

Which leads me to my larger point: this wacky libertarian system doesn't take into account a very basic principle: COMMON SENSE. A lot of laws are derived from common sense, and they seem to work pretty well.

Paul Stagg

10-03-2003, 09:36 AM

Who says there isn't an economic loss with noise pollution?

MixmasterNash

10-03-2003, 09:39 AM

I say there isn't a practical economic loss.

There is a loss to be sure, but it's so small that it is not worth pursuing in court via civil suit or by contacting the government to fine the individual.

So, noise pollution is annoying, but not really that hurtful. Thus, I have no reasonable recourse to fix the problem under your system.

Edit:
Actually, let me expand upon this:
You might say that I still have to cotact the police to get the neighbor to turn it down under the current system of regulations. This is true. However, the existence of the noise pollution law is in itself a barrier to its violation, preventing many occurances before they might happen.

Thus arrises another difference between systems. The current system of preventative laws is designed to stop bad things before they happen by seeding the minds of the public with knowledge that certain acts are bad. Your system of punitive measures hinges upon people learning their lesson, economically speaking, AFTER they have harmed another person. "Wrong!" says you, "People will know that bad behavior will lead to economic consequences, they will be forced to pay, and so they won't commit the act in the first place!" This relies on very bad assumption: that people are smart. If it were the case that people understood the real consequences of their actions, then there wouldn't be: smoking, unintended pregnancy, etc.

So, it boils down to this: You system is great if everyone is smart. The current system of preventative laws works when everyone is stupid. I happen to think that most people are stupid, or at least they don't think about their actions' consequences.

Paul Stagg

10-03-2003, 10:23 AM

a) so laws somehow stop bad behavior? A law against something is pointless if there isn't a penalty, right? Well, I've got a penalty.

b)What it boils down to is you think you know better what an individual should do with his/her property than they do. I think the individual should be allowed to make their own choices.

I'm certainly not in a position to assume people aren't stupid. Many are. But that doesn't mean they lose their rights, and doesn't mean our current system of determining who gets to decide is appropriate. In our current system, the people hwo get to decide what is appropriate never need to demonstrate they are right, they just need to demonstrate they can get a majority to agree with them.

Build the model.

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 10:38 AM

paul you are aware of the "free rider" problem. libertarianism assumes it doesn't exist.

quite bringing up the moral imperative of "protecting my property rights" when you haven't address my "common good" moral standard as being superior (bottom of page 7)

also, many laws exist to protect other's property rights in cases when the transaction cost of lititgation is too high. the car alarms case fits into this.

Paul Stagg

10-03-2003, 10:49 AM

I did address your common good moral standard. There is no such thing as a 'common good'.

How can one get a free ride if there is no ride provided? If someone gets a free ride, it is only because someone allows it to happen by choice, and if that's their choice, who are you to stop them?

You continue to assume laws would not exist. They would.

rpffly

10-03-2003, 10:51 AM

With regard to the noise pollution issue: Here is an example. Last weekend, where I live, there was a party that carried on until 3AM with some of the most disrespectful people. Talk about adults acting like 19 yr. olds. I, along with probably 6 other people, all at different times, went over and asked them to keep it down, it was unbelievably loud. It is obvious that any noise law didn't stop them from doing what they chose. The cops were called twice by the way. What if, just to illustrate a point, people chose to move away from the area because they were fed up with the costant partying every weekend and noone moved back into the area? What do you think would happen to their property value?

Paul Stagg

10-03-2003, 11:00 AM

Some reading for my state centric friends (and those of you who want to learn more about microeconomics and the philosophy behind free markets):

http://www.mises.org/

http://www.vonmisesinstitute-europe.org/

http://www.theihs.org/libertyguide/people.php/75852.html

http://www.hayekcenter.org/

http://www.cato.org

and the US Libertarian party website:

http://www.lp.org

There are also a number of Classical Liberal (Libertarian) weblogs. My favorite is Radley Balko (who wrights for Tech Central and FoxNews.com)

http://www.theagitator.com

There are a number of links there as well.

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 11:29 AM

please try to keep the argumentation less fractured; it would be helpful if we kept our points together under the numbers i designated, and separated from other points. :)

also please try to address the issues i talking about instead of using red herrings such as answering my statements with "ceos are greedy," something we agree upon. this is an example:

i said "capitalism, with government supervision, maximises output."

Wrong. This sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would pawn off.
this is just an ad hominems and doesn't address what i'm saying. you don't answer what i said about market mechanisms working, you just talked about how people should get a fair wage.

to clear things up, we agree on the following:

A) jobs are going overseas.
b) this is because of greed.
c) greed is rampant, especially among ceos.
d) wages are down for working folks, which sucks.

just so you know my position, what we disagree on is how we should address the problem of low wages. i say the best way is to maximize GDP, then use government means to ensure income is fairly distributed. you say employers should pay more, i think by graduated minimum wage depending on skill level/experience.

****************************************************

Ok here is where the argument takes place:

#1 - the question of owners stealing

Yes they are.[stealing]. To say they're not would be a lie. CEO's, as well as Owners, big business, whatever is stealing from the workers.

stealing - taking what isn't lawfully yours. Action of owners - paying people a wage they AGREE to work for. not stealing. mean, greedy, YES. it is. but it isn't stealing.

************************************************
#2 - does capitalism maximise output

Capitalism maximises greed. It upholds profit before people and is a cancer and detriment to everyone except the CEO's and owners making a killing.

you're not refuting my position that capitalism maximises output. it makes GDP grow. say something contrary to this here, but saying DISTRIBUTION of GDP is wrong (ceos get paid too much, somethign i agree with) doesn't answer my point. that argument is down lower. please don't conflate these two related issues.

************************************************
#3 - the question of your personal pay/career

I never said it outweighed the garbage pay. I said I enjoy my career. Isn't that what it's about? Enjoying what you do? I enjoy it. I am good at it. I make my bosses ALOT of money. In turn I deserve fair wages and benefits. Why wouldn't I? Because of me they own $50,000 cars, big houses, boats on the lake, and everything else they desire. Yet it's OKAY they're making a killing while I starve?

I chose to do that which I am good at. I chose to THINK for myself and not follow the pack. I chose an honorable career over a less honorable career of screwing people over, or sitting in an office all day. Like I stated above, I am good at what I do. Better then ANYONE I have ever worked with and even they admit it. The Employer I was with the last 2 years, I made him more money then he'd ever seen before. My jobs ALLWAYS came in ahead of schedule and below projected costs. In return I got? A joke of a wage, zero healthcare, and zero stability.

if the enjoyment of your career DOESN't outweigh the garbage pay, then why not switch jobs? in any case, if you are so much more productive than others making the same pay, you should demand your boss pays you more. if you really make him so much money, he would be willing to pay you a lot of money ot keep you; otherwise he would risk losing his money source. if he is stuborn, then you should quit and start your own installation company. based on what you suggest, you really could make a lot of money. why work hard to support your boss or other workers who don't work as hard as yourself?

************************************************
#4 - the merits of your solution

The solution is increased standardization. There needs to be a set payscale from State to State. Say someone lives where a 2 bedroom home is $900 a month, gas is $2.15 a gallon and the cost of living is higher. MY solution is setting it up so they make a fair wage commensurate with such factors providing them with a package that ensures they are paid fair and recieve fair benefits.

Some States do that allready, where the wage scale to be paid is competitive with the Union payscale. Not right to work states, of course.That's my solution. A solution that's been proven to work.

Higher FAIR wages would increase productivity, benefit all involved, and wouldn't harm the FAILING Bush economy any.

please give links to something thats explains states that have the system you describe. does the government dictate wages?

your solution ignores the problem you point out - jobs will move to pakistan. increasing wage rates will further cause this.

does your arguemnt that increased productivity would follow from higher wages assume that workers would work harder if they got more money? if this is true, then why wouldn't companies pay workers more, and make more money from their increased productivity? wouldn't this happen considering how greedy they are? since companies aren't paying workers more, then productivity probably wouldn't increase if wages were increased. this goes back to point #7

also, overall productivity is a function of technology, not wages.

******************************************
#5 - the merits of my solution:

Taxing isn't the solution.
this is your only argument against my solution.

my tax solution won't cause this exodus of jobs to pakistan to happen, and results in the same effective take home pay for workers as your solution would attempt to provide.

effective take home pay will be fair by your standards.

please give me a reason you don't like my solution.

*********************************************
#6 - the question of why wages are down.

Greed. Because Employers would rather ship jobs to Pakistan and hire 20 of them for what they could pay 1 American. Because Employers are hiring illegals at below minimum wage scales instead of paying American Citizens what they're worth.

since people have always been greedy, lets look at what is new in the last few decades. the answer is that jobs go overseas, and working class has to compete with low-wage people there, and immigrants.

My contention on how wages are set:
companies pay the very least possible amount to their employees, (because of greed)
as long as this minimum is less than the amount of money that the company will gain from employing someone. (your experience that your employer keeps you because you make more money for him than it costs him to pay you)
i think you agree with this, can we add it to things we agree upon?

Tryska

10-03-2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by rpffly
With regard to the noise pollution issue: Here is an example. Last weekend, where I live, there was a party that carried on until 3AM with some of the most disrespectful people. Talk about adults acting like 19 yr. olds. I, along with probably 6 other people, all at different times, went over and asked them to keep it down, it was unbelievably loud. It is obvious that any noise law didn't stop them from doing what they chose. The cops were called twice by the way. What if, just to illustrate a point, people chose to move away from the area because they were fed up with the costant partying every weekend and noone moved back into the area? What do you think would happen to their property value?

would your patying friends even care?

prolly not. plus it makes houses cheaper so more of their partying friends could move in and instead of a houseparty it becomes a block party. what is your point?

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
[B]I did address your common good moral standard. There is no such thing as a 'common good'.

you can't deny that the abstract idea "common good" exists any more than i can deny that the abstract idea "property rights" exist. the common good is hwat is good for society at large. libertarianism just says that property rights are more important/fundamental than common good.

How can one get a free ride if there is no ride provided? If someone gets a free ride, it is only because someone allows it to happen by choice, and if that's their choice, who are you to stop them?

TRANSACTION COSTS. you can't sue people to enforce your property rights if what you do helps everyone. thats why art/archetecture is subsudized. person walking by on the steets sees that nice building you put up. do you sue the person who looks at your building? in a world of no tranaction costs, yes. this will maximize your property value. but in the real world you can't. so government taxes everyone and put up the building.

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 11:43 AM

paul, are you suggesting libertarianism is the best thing even IF it makes everyone worse off?

rpffly

10-03-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Tryska

would your patying friends even care?

prolly not. plus it makes houses cheaper so more of their partying friends could move in and instead of a houseparty it becomes a block party. what is your point?

Exactly. My point was there is an economic consequence for getting out of control. If, for example our neighbors, who were doing the partying paid let's say $100,000 for their house and everyone moves out of the neighborhood because of the noise, in order to attract people to that neighborhood, the price of houses will come down if noone wants to come into that neighborhood due to its reputation. So, now the price of a house in that neighborhood is no longer $100,000 it's $65,000. So far our neighbors have lost $35,000 on their property. Now this may rise over time, but only under the right circumstances.

MixmasterNash

10-03-2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
a) so laws somehow stop bad behavior? A law against something is pointless if there isn't a penalty, right? Well, I've got a penalty.

b)What it boils down to is you think you know better what an individual should do with his/her property than they do. I think the individual should be allowed to make their own choices.

(a) Pre-existing laws stop some bad behavior by indicating that certain activities are wrong whereas your purely ex post facto punishment will surely stop far less, because people don't think things through!

(b) Well, yes, quite frankly I think I do know what people should be doing with their money. Just one example: Enron should NOT be buying naming rights to a ballpark with money they stole from California consumers. One interpretation of idea of laws is that society knows better what is good for the whole better than any one random schmoe does.

Tryska

10-03-2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by rpffly

Exactly. My point was there is an economic consequence for getting out of control. If, for example our neighbors, who were doing the partying paid let's say $100,000 for their house and everyone moves out of the neighborhood because of the noise, in order to attract people to that neighborhood, the price of houses will come down if noone wants to come into that neighborhood due to its reputation. So, now the price of a house in that neighborhood is no longer $100,000 it's $65,000. So far our neighbors have lost $35,000 on their property. Now this may rise over time, but only under the right circumstances.

ok and?

this is what i really don't get. libertarianism jsut seems so money-grubbing and selfish to me. and that's ugly.

people should have the opportunity to make money, as it is a necessary evil, however, it should not be the be all and end all of one's existense. it's too "me and mine" focused, and it doesn't surprise me that it is espoused primarily by people who are products of the 70s and 80s.

rpffly

10-03-2003, 12:32 PM

Ok and what? Do you not understand? :)

I'm not a libertarian. It just goes a little to far for me personally. I think there does need to be *some* gov't control in terms of protection. The gov't has a duty to protect us against those who break the law. The problem with Enron, Gray Davis got taken to school by a bunch of top notch negotiators. It was Davis' responsibility to fight back and not just accept the first proposal that slid accross his desk. He has no business doing business deals. I part company with Spart and Mix when the issue of income redistribution and tax the rich comes up. It's a red flag for me. Everyone in this life has hurdles they have to overcome. There has never been a time in this countries history where there has there been more liberal a society, more money available for programs, and more opportunity for everyone. To punish me for working hard is unfair.

Tryska

10-03-2003, 12:35 PM

i understand. i jsut don't see the point. if their property values go down so what?

if they decide that having keggers is worth losing 35k what's it to you? why should i care? it's their business no?

really using your logic, if anything it's you and your neighbors that moved who chose the real hardship. moving's a pain int he ass, and added expense.

rpffly

10-03-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
i understand. i jsut don't see the point. if their property values go down so what?

if they decide that having keggers is worth losing 35k what's it to you? why should i care? it's their business no?

really using your logic, if anything it's you and your neighbors that moved who chose the real hardship. moving's a pain int he ass, and added expense.

I don't care if they lose 35K. But I think they might have an interest in getting the most value out of what they have any smart person would. I don't know anyone who would want to sell their home for less than they bought it. And if they do then that's their right.

It may be a pain in the ass but it will be my choice.

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 12:49 PM

i argue for income redistribution because never before in our economy has there been greater disparity in returns to capital and wages for high-skill work as compared to low skill work. nobody is getting punished, i just think work and income should be better correlated, instead of a winner-take-all approach as is currently around. under my system, hard workers/talent gets historically normal return for hard work/talent.

"unfair" is a loaded term.

rpffly

10-03-2003, 01:00 PM

But don't confuse disparity with opportunity. It may be increasing but the lack of opportunity is not. We've all got the opportunity to go after those high salaries if we choose. I know you know that.

Paul Stagg

10-03-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Spartacus
paul, are you suggesting libertarianism is the best thing even IF it makes everyone worse off?

It doesn't, so your question is pointless.
Capitalism with government supervision does NOT maximize output. Read Hayek.

Mix - at least you are honest. You believe it's OK to take property by force if the majority believe they know the best use for it.

I believe that's theft. Theft, even with good intentions, is still theft.

We probably won't be able to get past that.

T- you are ignoring a huge part of what I'm talking about. While dollars are used to measure value, they are not the only value in the marketplace. Every transaction makes both people better off, or it won't happen. It is also YOU and YOURS focused.

There is an excellent post on the agitator blog about lunch club. Read it. It's a great example of how this works.

Paul Stagg

10-03-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Spartacus
i argue for income redistribution because never before in our economy has there been greater disparity in returns to capital and wages for high-skill work as compared to low skill work. nobody is getting punished, i just think work and income should be better correlated, instead of a winner-take-all approach as is currently around. under my system, hard workers/talent gets historically normal return for hard work/talent.

"unfair" is a loaded term.

So you take by force and give to others, baed on your histrical definition, not what the market dictates?

Do you understand the end result of that behavior?

MixmasterNash

10-03-2003, 01:49 PM

You and Grover Norquist keep saying that the government takes taxes by force. That's equivalent to saying that you take money by force from your employer because if they don't pay you will can sue or have them jailed. It's bullhonkey and you know it. If you don't like paying taxes then you can get up and leave, just like you can quit your job (or get fired). Both cases are contracts!

It's an old, right-wing, government hating slogan along the lines of "death tax," "average tax cut," and "liberal media."

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg

It doesn't, so your question is pointless.

i asked a hypothetical. whats so hard about answering it.

Capitalism with government supervision does NOT maximize output. Read Hayek.
i'm glad haven't read some crank doesn't understand the loss of surplus that occurs with monopolies, that pollution and other negative externalities can't be sufficiently controlled with suing people for property rights, that positive externality-causing actions will be insufficiently undertaken.

Mix - at least you are honest. You believe it's OK to take property by force if the majority believe they know the best use for it.

its only your attempt to judge non-libertarian systems by libertarian standards that makes this notable.

I believe that's theft. Theft, even with good intentions, is still theft.

define it to be "theft" if you like. this is still hard to argue when you won't answer my first question

We probably won't be able to get past that.

mostly likely not. like i said before, it comes down to value of what is good for people or hwat give them property rights. libertarianism is what you choose if you value having prop.rts more than you value the common good.

There is an excellent post on the agitator blog about lunch club. Read it. It's a great example of how this works. [/QUOTE]

So you take by force and give to others, baed on your histrical definition, not what the market dictates?

Do you understand the end result of that behavior?

ugh, i'm sure you could destroy that straw man, huh?

supply-side economics have been pretty disproven, unless tax rates are going to vary FAR more than what i'm suggesting.

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 02:03 PM

rpffly

10-03-2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by MixmasterNash
You and Grover Norquist keep saying that the government takes taxes by force. That's equivalent to saying that you take money by force from your employer because if they don't pay you will can sue or have them jailed. It's bullhonkey and you know it. If you don't like paying taxes then you can get up and leave, just like you can quit your job (or get fired). Both cases are contracts!

It's an old, right-wing, government hating slogan along the lines of "death tax," "average tax cut," and "liberal media."

Dude....are you sure you want to stick with that?

I agreed to a contract for specific wages/salary for services rendered. So if an employer doesn't pay me then I have a right under the law to sue.

What specific contract was agreed to with the gov't? The MAJORITY of people voted a candidate in. I didn't vote for him/her. I don't accept the way he is doing his job. But I have to pay them anyway or I will go to jail.

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 02:32 PM

social contract

Gyno Rhino

10-03-2003, 02:33 PM

The contract is that when you enter those borders and apply for citizenship, you are bound by the government's rules. Don't like it, leave.

Reinier

10-03-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg

Reiner - No one deserves my money. I can choose to help, or not. It is morally wrong for you to come take my money and give it to someone else, regardless of your good intentions. No, there should nto be Federally subsidized culture. If people value it, the market will give it to them. Again, why force people who DON'T want it to pay for it? Because somehow you know better?

Mocking my points will get you nowhere, but someone mentioned labor laws.

Take a minute, and really think through what would happen if tomorrow, we eliminated all labor laws. what would be good about it. What would be bad.

Now think about how a free market (a real free market) would address the bad. Build a little model, and see.

Im not sure if your saying i was, but to be sure- I was not mocking your points. however I dont think what your saying is very realistic- Ill help if i want to. You wont. people wont. thats how it is. Theres a few people who help people in their lives. they do it to feel better about themselves. people are selfish man.

Yes i know better than the public. 1 person can be sensible and wise and considerate, a billion people is as stupid as a sack of sand. there is a need for a system, solidarity and cooperation.

MixmasterNash

10-03-2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by rpffly

Dude....are you sure you want to stick with that?

I agreed to a contract for specific wages/salary for services rendered. So if an employer doesn't pay me then I have a right under the law to sue.

What specific contract was agreed to with the gov't? The MAJORITY of people voted a candidate in. I didn't vote for him/her. I don't accept the way he is doing his job. But I have to pay them anyway or I will go to jail.

Thank you spart and gyno...

More precisely, your social contract is not with one party or another, and most certainly not with a particular politician. Your social contract is with the government (of, for, and by the people, who make up society). By staying in the U.S., you agree that you will abide by our rules and regulations and pay your taxes. If you don't want to pay then you will either leave or be subject to our penalties. And it's not our problem if another country doesn't want you, by the way.

Most American citizens don't have to deal with this quite so explicitly as, for example, dual citizens. Technically, when you turn 18 in the U.S., you have to choose whether to be a U.S. citizen or one of a different country, as far as the U.S. govm't is concern. (Practically speaking, no one cares if you retain your dual citizenship. Indeed my friend learned that you can't lose your British citizenship unless you go throw down your passport and pimp-slap the ambassador with a white glove.)

Spartacus

10-03-2003, 03:07 PM

and it follows from that, that in a democracy, where government is supported by the people for the people's benefit, that the government is looking out for the commonweal. (aside from ethical arguments i've already made)

MixmasterNash

10-03-2003, 05:07 PM

<heston voice> Soyl... er Government is people! Government is people!

rpffly

10-03-2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by MixmasterNash

Thank you spart and gyno...

More precisely, your social contract is not with one party or another, and most certainly not with a particular politician. Your social contract is with the government (of, for, and by the people, who make up society). By staying in the U.S., you agree that you will abide by our rules and regulations and pay your taxes. If you don't want to pay then you will either leave or be subject to our penalties. And it's not our problem if another country doesn't want you, by the way.

Most American citizens don't have to deal with this quite so explicitly as, for example, dual citizens. Technically, when you turn 18 in the U.S., you have to choose whether to be a U.S. citizen or one of a different country, as far as the U.S. govm't is concern. (Practically speaking, no one cares if you retain your dual citizenship. Indeed my friend learned that you can't lose your British citizenship unless you go throw down your passport and pimp-slap the ambassador with a white glove.)

Yes you are all correct and you will not get an arguement from me there. But, I have yet to meet an employee who "takes money by force" from their employer. I know quite a few who earn from their employer. The gov't doesn't earn anything. That is why I'm having a hard time understanding how you can draw a parallel between private contracts and social contracts within the context you described earlier. The gov't takes from you whether you like it or not based on preceived need. I earn from my employer based on performance. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying.

Gyno Rhino

10-03-2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by rpffly

Yes you are all correct and you will not get an arguement from me there. But, I have yet to meet an employee who "takes money by force" from their employer. I know quite a few who earn from their employer. The gov't doesn't earn anything. That is why I'm having a hard time understanding how you can draw a parallel between private contracts and social contracts within the context you described earlier. The gov't takes from you whether you like it or not based on preceived need. I earn from my employer based on performance. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying.

How do you get the idea that the government doesn't earn anything?

No it's not exactly the same thing as a lawyer in a law firm, but the government DOES provide you some serious services. And you pay them for it.

Roads, schools, military, etc etc etc are all services done by the government for the people. So yes, the government earns money by carrying out tasks.

rpffly

10-04-2003, 09:20 AM

That's called a tax.

Don't confuse taxing with earning.

If you get a tax refund in the mail, is that the gov't telling you they overearned?

If the gov't takes money from me to give to someone else, is that how you define earning?

GonePostal

10-04-2003, 11:13 AM

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11697

Moving their FireGL development team back home :) Hope I get hired by them.

rpffly

10-04-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Gyno Rhino

How do you get the idea that the government doesn't earn anything?

No it's not exactly the same thing as a lawyer in a law firm, but the government DOES provide you some serious services. And you pay them for it.

Roads, schools, military, etc etc etc are all services done by the government for the people. So yes, the government earns money by carrying out tasks.

To further expand on my point Gyno, the gov't also monopolyzes those services, and I think there is a consensus on this thread with regard to monopolies. The gov't doesn't earn anything because there is no competition for those services. At least in the private sector you can consider barriers to entry with a monopoly. With the gov, you can't even consider barriers to entry because the gov is the biggest barrier of them all.

Spartacus

10-04-2003, 02:51 PM

That's called a tax.
in exchange for the tax, the government provides services. the tax=fee you pay for service. the tax isn't the service itself.

To further expand on my point Gyno, the gov't also monopolyzes those services, and I think there is a consensus on this thread with regard to monopolies. At least in the private sector you can consider barriers to entry with a monopoly. With the gov, you can't even consider barriers to entry because the gov is the biggest barrier of them all

the reason monopolies are bad is that they underproduce, which increases supply. the reason this is bad is that it reduces consumer surplus. monopolies aren't bad becasue it makes bill gates rich at the expense of larry ellison. so if the government produces, and they don't have a profit incentive the same way corporation does, it won't underproduce, becasue thats not in the interest of the consumers (votes).

The gov't doesn't earn anything because there is no competition for those services.
i don't even understand what this could mean. are you saying roads have no value to me because there is only one road-provider?

rpffly

10-04-2003, 04:31 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Spartacus
in exchange for the tax, the government provides services. the tax=fee you pay for service. the tax isn't the service itself.

*****I don't accept that for reasons stated earlier.

the reason monopolies are bad is that they underproduce, which increases supply. the reason this is bad is that it reduces consumer surplus. monopolies aren't bad becasue it makes bill gates rich at the expense of larry ellison. so if the government produces, and they don't have a profit incentive the same way corporation does, it won't underproduce, becasue thats not in the interest of the consumers (votes).

*****Under producing leads to shortge not surplus, driving up price. That's why monopoloies are not good. Monopolies have no competition so they set the price for the goods in the market.

i don't even understand what this could mean. are you saying roads have no value to me because there is only one road-provider?

*****Not value to you, value for the gov. The gov has no interest in maintaining anything. The only thing the gov has an interest is getting re elected. I don't call that an incentive. They have no incentive to be efficient, no profit motive. Why should they when they don't have to compete for anything.

Example: school vouchers. How long have the public schools been in decline? Don't you think that if the public schools were at risk of losing students to private schools, they would actually get down to the root of the problem instead of throwing money at it?

Spartacus

10-04-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by rpffly
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Spartacus
in exchange for the tax, the government provides services. the tax=fee you pay for service. the tax isn't the service itself.

[quote]*****I don't accept that for reasons stated earlier.
i'm guessing you mean this:
If the gov't takes money from me to give to someone else, is that how you define earning?
is government making any accounting profit? no, they have no profit incentive. so all of the money they take in goes out for costs. i call this a service. remember that the money that goes out goes to gov. employees and contractors that do work. you might not think they are too efficient but that doesn't mean it isn't a service.

*****Under producing leads to shortge not surplus, driving up price. That's why monopoloies are not good. Monopolies have no competition so they set the price for the goods in the market.

i meant to say they reduce supply. in anycase, the price setting itself isn't whats bad, its that they produce less than the optimal amount. here is a link to show what happens: http://v5o5jotqkgfu3btr91t7w5fhzedjaoaz8igl.unbf.ca/~yuri/ECON1073_NEW/Fig6_7.JPG

*****Not value to you, value for the gov. The gov has no interest in maintaining anything.

the road is still worth something to mean. your argument is that i'm getting overcharged i guess.

The only thing the gov has an interest is getting re elected. I don't call that an incentive. They have no incentive to be efficient, no profit motive. Why should they when they don't have to compete for anything.

they have the same incentive that a corporation does. the executive of a company doesn't have economic profit as his incentive, its to get reelected by the board of directors. board of directors/sharholders:executive::voters:government official

Example: school vouchers. How long have the public schools been in decline? Don't you think that if the public schools were at risk of losing students to private schools, they would actually get down to the root of the problem instead of throwing money at it?

there isn't monopoly in schools. and voucher programs haven't shown more than slight success, and only that in a few studies. most of the reason private schools have better results is sample bias.

profit motive is less about getting people to "work hard," and more about ensuring proper allocation of capital in an economy.

PowerManDL

10-04-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Spartacus
i'm guessing you mean this:
is government making any accounting profit? no, they have no profit incentive. so all of the money they take in goes out for costs. i call this a service. remember that the money that goes out goes to gov. employees and contractors that do work. you might not think they are too efficient but that doesn't mean it isn't a service.

The gov't takes that money and then some for its costs. Multiple corporations competing to be most cost-effective generally don't run their operations that way. Not if they want to stay in business, that is.

the road is still worth something to mean. your argument is that i'm getting overcharged i guess.

You usually are overcharged in a monopoly, yes.

they have the same incentive that a corporation does. the executive of a company doesn't have economic profit as his incentive, its to get reelected by the board of directors. board of directors/sharholders:executive::voters:government official

And the CEO is re-elected by: You guessed it, turning an economic profit.

profit motive is less about getting people to "work hard," and more about ensuring proper allocation of capital in an economy.

Which is basically the same thing worded differently.

Spartacus

10-04-2003, 06:31 PM

your arguments are just talking about how government is less efficient than private enterprises. thats not really the issue. some stuff can't or can't efficiently be run by private enterprise, or is a natural monopoly. so there isn't really much choice if we want those services (original point mix made was about social contract)

And the CEO is re-elected by: You guessed it, turning an economic profit.
presidents also get elected when they turn an profit. also known as making economy to work. its more complex obvioulsy, but there is certainly incentive not to waste money.

"profit motive is less about getting people to "work hard," and more about ensuring proper allocation of capital in an economy."

Which is basically the same thing worded differently.
not really. libertariansm seem to think that people will suddlenly be so much more creative/efficient/etc if they just had a higher wage rate. this isn't the same as justifing economic profits on their effects on capital flow. economic profit serves as incentive to ensure proper level of output of a given product given consumer demand and price levels.

PowerManDL

10-05-2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Spartacus
your arguments are just talking about how government is less efficient than private enterprises. thats not really the issue. some stuff can't or can't efficiently be run by private enterprise, or is a natural monopoly. so there isn't really much choice if we want those services (original point mix made was about social contract)

Well, to put it bluntly, "duh." Of course by argument is that private enterprise is more efficient than government.

This trivial point can't be escaping you-- a less efficient gov't is a less efficient economy. Period. I don't care how you rationalize it, that's how it ends up.

And yes, there is a choice. The government does NOT have to run these things, as if its the only option. That's what the Libertarian stance says.

presidents also get elected when they turn an profit. also known as making economy to work. its more complex obvioulsy, but there is certainly incentive not to waste money.

If this were true we wouldn't have had a President since the 60's.

"profit motive is less about getting people to "work hard," and more about ensuring proper allocation of capital in an economy."

not really. libertariansm seem to think that people will suddlenly be so much more creative/efficient/etc if they just had a higher wage rate. this isn't the same as justifing economic profits on their effects on capital flow. economic profit serves as incentive to ensure proper level of output of a given product given consumer demand and price levels.

Where did you make this jump of intuition? Where did I state or imply it?

I wasn't talking about individual wages. I was talking about "profit," the idea of making more money than was originally put in. And yes, like it or not, that IS incentive to perform, create, be efficient, and any other function of production you wish to assign. Like it or not, greed is there. Capitalism merely exploits that fact to its advantage.

You can argue all you want, but your defintion is just different wording based on the psychological/sociological reasoning presented above.

GonePostal

10-05-2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by PowerManDL
And yes, like it or not, that IS incentive to perform, create, be efficient, and any other function of production you wish to assign.
I agree with everything but the efficient part. Corporations are not intristically efficient. They have 2 goals to make money and self preservation. Most of the time it is in it's interest to be "efficient" but not all. (The context of efficient that I am using it in is efficiency in the wholistic sense not of the monetary sense)

EdgeCrusher

10-05-2003, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by GonePostal

I agree with everything but the efficient part. Corporations are not intristically efficient. They have 2 goals to make money and self preservation. Most of the time it is in it's interest to be "efficient" but not all. (The context of efficient that I am using it in is efficiency in the wholistic sense not of the monetary sense)

Companies maximize profit by being efficient. That's why you see companies closing down plants in countries where wages are too high and they go to places like Pakistan. The less waste and more a company minimizes cost the better, and corporations are always looking for ways to do so.

What do you mean "in the wholistic sense"?

PowerManDL

10-05-2003, 01:56 AM

Efficiency is in the interest of turning a profit. I really can't imagine a situation where that wouldn't hold true.

GonePostal

10-05-2003, 02:21 AM

Efficiency as our economy defines it doesn't cut it. It is a flawed idea. That's what I ment by a "wholistic" sense meaning when the total picture is taken into account. On a per dollar basis yes a company is strives to be as efficient as possible. But in many instances they are not "efficient". Their processes are based soley on a dollar analysis. The process that a company brings a product/service to market can be a very inefficient and waste full method (when looking at it in a preformance/numerical way) but in the end that is the most cost effective way to do this. Many times with raw materials it is easier and more cost effective to just buy more raw material then it is to minimize the amount used and to reprocess the excess.
Efficient in the monetary sense but can be inefficient in other senses of the word. Depends on the context/definition you use.

GonePostal

10-05-2003, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by EdgeCrusher

Companies maximize profit by being efficient. That's why you see companies closing down plants in countries where wages are too high and they go to places like Pakistan. The less waste and more a company minimizes cost the better, and corporations are always looking for ways to do so.

What do you mean "in the wholistic sense"?
Companies don't maximize profits by being efficient. They maximize profits by doing what is cheaper. Most of the time that is being efficient but sometimes it's not.

PowerManDL

10-05-2003, 02:27 AM

Show me an example then.

EdgeCrusher

10-05-2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by GonePostal

Companies don't maximize profits by being efficient. They maximize profits by doing what is cheaper. Most of the time that is being efficient but sometimes it's not.

Care to provide examples with sources instead of "most of the time"s?

Paul Stagg

10-05-2003, 08:06 AM

Referring to Hayek as a crank shows your complete ignorance of economic theory.

Spartacus

10-05-2003, 02:10 PM

And yes, there is a choice. The government does NOT have to run these things, as if its the only option. That's what the Libertarian stance says.
profit incentive is not the ONLY factor affecting efficiency. you could not have the government build roads, but it won't be as efficient, even though you introduce a profit incentive. justifiable government actions occur if this is the case or to encourage proper price incentives in cases involving externalities and those involving fairness (which just goes back to the ethical arguments. i know you think they are in violation fo libertarian principles)

Where did you make this jump of intuition? Where did I state or imply it?

I wasn't talking about individual wages. I was talking about "profit," the idea of making more money than was originally put in. And yes, like it or not, that IS incentive to perform, create, be efficient, and any other function of production you wish to assign. Like it or not, greed is there. Capitalism merely exploits that fact to its advantage.

You can argue all you want, but your defintion is just different wording based on the psychological/sociological reasoning presented above.

the libertarian analysis is this: if people faced a more progressive wage scale they would start new businesses that they wouldn't otherwise. thats why if taxes were reduced, creativity would bloom. people would be more willing to spend a lot of time starting a business.

but these business opportunities are only marginally useful. they are only profitable at the lower levels of taxes. so i'm saying that they aren't going to increases productivity by anthying more than a very slight degree, so its not much of a loss. i agree there is 'some' incentive. once again, i'm not advocating a system without price signals.

Referring to Hayek as a crank shows your complete ignorance of economic theory.

i'd say its less objectionable than your taking him as gospel.

PowerManDL

10-05-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Spartacus

profit incentive is not the ONLY factor affecting efficiency. you could not have the government build roads, but it won't be as efficient, even though you introduce a profit incentive. justifiable government actions occur if this is the case or to encourage proper price incentives in cases involving externalities and those involving fairness (which just goes back to the ethical arguments. i know you think they are in violation fo libertarian principles)

Of course its not the only factor. But its the key human factor.

Who's to say road building wouldn't be more efficient with private contractors?

I'm not a libertarian, so I really don't care if it violates any principles. I'm examining what's likely to work, based on the given social factors.

but these business opportunities are only marginally useful. they are only profitable at the lower levels of taxes. so i'm saying that they aren't going to increases productivity by anthying more than a very slight degree, so its not much of a loss. i agree there is 'some' incentive. once again, i'm not advocating a system without price signals.

Frankly I'm not even seeing where this comes from.

All business have to start somewhere. The above statement shows a naivete about how businesses develop and grow.

Spartacus

10-05-2003, 02:39 PM

Of course its not the only factor. But its the key human factor.

Who's to say road building wouldn't be more efficient with private contractors?

its the main factor in some instances, and when other factors override the problem of lessened profit incentive.

you only need one road between town X and town Y. to have 5 companies all build roads between those towns means you're investing about 500% of what you would if the gov. built the road, minus a bit for the competitivness/profit incentive bit. so the roads cost society almost 400% more.

Frankly I'm not even seeing where this comes from.
All business have to start somewhere. The above statement shows a naivete about how businesses develop and grow.

right but the benefit to society by the existance of company X is mostly that it allows for consumer surplus and economic profits. reallocating capital and labor to company X takes it away from the rest of the economy, so it is only benefitial if you get some net gain. i'm saying that net gain won't be much.

PowerManDL

10-05-2003, 02:56 PM

You're neglecting a key point.

Businesses have markets. If there's already a road between town X and town Y, no sane businessman would build another road simply because there's no market for another road. At that point it becomes about maintenance, not about "production" in the literal sense.

As to the second point, you're missing out on the driving factors behind competition and innovation. If there's only one company, in this case the government, that has a strangehold on the entire market, there's no desire to innovate. Roads get paved when there's money, and sometimes not then.

If there's a business that only exists to do that, its going to be very interested in doing so as efficiently as possible, simply for profit. And its going to be doubly so if there's 10 other companies all competing for its share of the market.

Spartacus

10-05-2003, 03:11 PM

the government is the one that is more likely to repave the road, since they don't have an incentive to just let it go in order to maximise profits. there would be less capital devoted to roads, not more. monopolies raise prices and lower expenditures for output.

there isn't any innovation anywya. the only thing gov. does is decide how much money goes toward roads. they contract out the actual construction anyway.

i see your point that the amount of incentive drops, but i don't think in the absence of profit incentive, gov. just says "lets just roll some dice and that'll be how many million we spend on roads." they do studies on it.

PowerManDL

10-05-2003, 05:14 PM

Why are you trying to equate the government's actions in such a situation with the actions of a free market? The two don't and can't coexist, so those analogies you're using as examples are moot.

If road maintenance were privatized, the competing companies would be the ones taking care of the roads. The incentive would be, as always, "getting paid." If one company did a ****ty job, another company would get the money because it would do a better job.

Innovation, you think not? How about efficiency of labor? Overall cost effectiveness? Timeliness? Maybe even some technological R&D involving materials and paving techniques? Those are all possibly and likely, and honestly don't exist in the current model. I'd call that innovation.

That last analogy is another comparison of apples and oranges. Government is by definition a monopoly. A competing market trying to solve the same problem would be a lot more effective.

Spartacus

10-05-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by PowerManDL
Why are you trying to equate the government's actions in such a situation with the actions of a free market? The two don't and can't coexist, so those analogies you're using as examples are moot.

i'm comparing the results of gov. action versus no gov action (and the resultant private aciton). obviously its not a single universe, its two alternatives. i'm comparing the two.

If road maintenance were privatized, the competing companies would be the ones taking care of the roads. The incentive would be, as always, "getting paid." If one company did a ****ty job, another company would get the money because it would do a better job.

? so now the government contracts maintenance, or every driver does? i don't understand your scenario, and its not either of mine.

Innovation, you think not? How about efficiency of labor? Overall cost effectiveness? Timeliness? Maybe even some technological R&D involving materials and paving techniques? Those are all possibly and likely, and honestly don't exist in the current model. I'd call that innovation.

the government isn't involved in the actual contrstuction, just the part where its decided where roads are built, how often they are repaired, etc., more of capital allocation questions. they contract out the actual construction part. and the capital part is better done without a price incentive, for reasons i gave above.

That last analogy is another comparison of apples and oranges. Government is by definition a monopoly. A competing market trying to solve the same problem would be a lot more effective.

not if the resulting market would also be a monopoly. in that case, gov is better than private firm. and the cases i'm talking about are necessarily monopolies.