I'll agree with you that if money is redistributed and is used as a productive investment, like your example the of the GI bill or to see someone through a short bout of unemployment, it can help smooth out societal and economic fluctuations.

However, once the system becomes to large, convoluted, inflated, and dependent on these entitlements you create a scenario akin to a house of cards. Remove of the stabilizing cards, shit collapses.

IMO, if government is going to create entitlements it should be structured in a way that encourages productivity, rather than inhibit it. How to do this? That is a tough question that I don't have the answer to.

I suppose some solutions would be taxation based on production value to society... Businesses that enhance society through technology, services or job creation should get tax incentives. Businesses that do not add as much value relative to their profitability, like convoluted financial derivative services, should be taxed higher.

Perhaps entitlements should come with volunteer and work requirements.

The problem is that when the government gives out free money and can be gamed by anyone with influence/money, moral hazards are created and we see the shitstorm we do now and did back in 2008.

2/22/2012 12:53:46 PM

so, it's OK to rob someone, as long as we use the money better, lol

2/22/2012 12:56:55 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps entitlements should come with volunteer and work requirements."

Most come with requirements to at least prove that you're job hunting, and most benefits are cut off after you fail to get work for so long.

Quote :

"so, it's OK to rob someone, as long as we use the money better, lol"

Yes, that is exactly how Capitalists justify this:

2/22/2012 1:28:41 PM

Aaronburro, how do you propose we navigate out of this shitstorm?
How do we fund critical government services that are currently in place?

We can't simply pull the plug and cancel taxation. That can't and won't happen.

I am all for the reduction and elimination of taxes, but lets get real. It can't instantly happen unless we want our society to collapse.

IMO, The flood of corporate and societal entitlements has crippled productive capacity of the middle class. We've got to figure out a way to make the middle class productive again. Until then, 49% of Americans will be dependent on entitlements.

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM. Reason : instantly]

2/22/2012 1:30:31 PM

The middle class is more productive than ever, they just aren't getting paid for it. How fucking hard is it to understand that sometimes pay does not equal productivity?



[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 1:44:15 PM

What is preventing these workers from demanding higher pay?

2/22/2012 1:56:49 PM

Well for starters:



It's hard to demand higher pay when there's a dude sitting next to you who just needs a job, any job, and will take what he can get.

Oh and:



A woman sitting next to him who, due to her gender, can expect lower pay in general.

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 2:00:28 PM

^^^^

Is that productivity due to a increase in the individuals ability to do more or is that a result of modernization and capital investment making each unit of personal work more productive in terms of the end product.

2/22/2012 2:01:18 PM

Quote :

"Is that productivity due to a increase in the individuals ability to do more or is that a result of modernization and capital investment making each unit of personal work more productive in terms of the end product."

What's the difference? The individual still does the work. Giving him a tool, which makes his work more productive, doesn't change that fact. Someone has to operate the shovel, drill press, the computer, whatever.

If I tell you to pound some nails in, and let you use my hammer in the meantime, and you pounded in 500 nails in an hour, would you expect payment for only 5 nails, which is about how many you'd have gotten in with your bare knuckles? You aren't paid (in theory) based on the number of sweat drops you produce, but the value of the product to your employer (ie, what he can sell it for).

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 2:02:54 PM

right, but then the employer then goes to an assembly line set up pneumatic nailgun station where the wood slides in front of you, you trigger in the 20 nails per piece and slide it out, thus taking you from 5 finished pieces per day to 40 pieces per day, do you think you deserve 8x the salary?

2/22/2012 2:12:54 PM

No, the workers who installed the assembly deserve a cut too, as do the consultants and engineers who no doubt made the actual decisions about what assembly to use, and the financier who did the profit projections, and the folks who trained the workers to use it.


Do you think the CEO is entitled to an 8x salary increase just because he put forth the money for it? Money that he gained by holding some of the value generated by past workers, who will no doubt be fired once the machine is in place?

If all the workers walked out, how many pieces would the CEO be able to sell?

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 2:15:22 PM

Quote :

"It's hard to demand higher pay when there's a dude sitting next to you who just needs a job, any job, and will take what he can get. "

And thats a bad thing? Also hard to demand more money when another company can produce a better product at a cheaper price. Of course we could FORCE people to send money to the outdated business model to keep it going...great plan.

2/22/2012 2:16:17 PM

Quote :

"And thats a bad thing?"

Yes. In an ideal world, your pay corresponds somewhat to the value you produce for your employer, not the general level of poverty and desperation among your fellow laborers.

Quote :

" Also hard to demand more money when another company can produce a better product at a cheaper price. "

I agree, it's hard to compete with the Chinese because labor is practically a non-cost to them. Maybe if we adopted the standard of living of the Chinese working class we could fix that. Sound like a good idea?

Quote :

"Of course we could FORCE people to send money to the outdated business model to keep it going...great plan."

Or we could unionize and force employers to pay us something proportional to our productivity, instead of fighting amongst ourselves for table scraps.

Or we could have generous enough social services that people aren't as desperate that they'll take wages far below the value of their product.

Or tie corporate tax rates to CEO-worker pay ratios or profit margins.

Or any other thousands of possible options, who knows, the point is there are options besides just letting the working class eat each other alive while the class of owners shrinks while simultaneously consuming more and more of our GDP.

Or I guess we could just wait until unemployment holds at a steady 20%, nobody can afford the very products they produce, and a mass disillusionment occurs whereby we psychologically abandon the currency that tabulates the absurd allocation wealth and overthrow the entire system of wage slavery.


[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 2:21:40 PM

Quote :

"Yes. In an ideal world, your pay corresponds somewhat to the value you produce for your employer, not the general level of poverty and desperation among your fellow laborers. "

And you dont feel this is exactly what happens today?

Quote :

"Or we could unionize and force employers to pay us something proportional to our productivity, instead of fighting amongst ourselves for table scraps. "

Way to think things through.

Quote :

"Or we could have generous enough social services that people aren't as desperate that they'll take wages far below the value of their product."

Here is where MILLIONS have decided to go rather than work. Also this increases the costs of doing business IN this country.

Quote :

"Or I guess we could just wait until unemployment holds at a steady 20%, nobody can afford the very products they produce, and a mass disillusionment occurs whereby we psychologically abandon the currency "

Oh good, you have been paying attention to the news. Bc many of those countries bought into your first couple ideas and got the result you just mentioned. Well done. (although the unemployment numbers are a bit worse)

Real world vs theory

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 2:34:27 PM

I support a fully communist health care system. Doctors should be drafted by the government based on aptitude in high school. Private practice should be banned.

2/22/2012 2:38:44 PM

Quote :

"And you dont feel this is exactly what happens today?"

No, as pointed out (and you even agreed) you are paid what you are willing to work for. If somebody is willing to work more for less, that becomes the baseline pay. It is not connected to the value of the product you produce except it must be less. Other than that, it's open season to find the most desperate worker who can get the job done.

Quote :

"Here is where MILLIONS have decided to go rather than work. Also this increases the costs of doing business IN this country."

Seriously? Do you think we have 9% unemployment because people are lazy? Do you think 3/4 of food stamp recipients have work (either with low wages or not enough hours) because they get bored of the apparent heaven that is welfare? While individual benefit payouts have been falling since '77?

And seriously, you think that's what's worrying businesses?



Oh yeah, look at that, clearly business owners are distressed because nobody is showing up to fill in job applications, they're all sitting at home chompin on food stamp-bought lobsters.

Quote :

"Oh good, you have been paying attention to the news. Bc many of those countries bought into your first couple ideas and got the result you just mentioned. Well done. (although the unemployment numbers are a bit worse)"

Which countries are you talking about? Are these democratic, industrialized, modern nations? Or agrarian monarchies that converted to authoritarian communism?

Quote :

"Real world vs theory"

You are stupendously retarded. I've shown you how union membership has dropped, wages have stagnated, ceo-worker pay ratios have skyrocketed, wealth concentration has increased, all while taxes on the rich go down, and that loss of consumer demand is depressing investment and hiring. Against all that, you assert with no real causal mechanism, that it's all because welfare is too cushy and also that's why we're in debt.

You wanna talk about theory? Your entire understanding of Capitalism sums to a glossary definition in the back of an 8th graders' Social Studies textbook, and your understanding of alternatives seems to be inspired entirely by McCarthy era propaganda. You want reality? Take a look at any of the dozen graphs I've posted in the past two pages. I've cited a hell of a lot more reality than you.

I just pray that somebody's reading this thread who is actually reading it and trying to think critically. Not holding their breath until my posts are done so they can ignore them and say "Ya well the solution is more Capitalism." I have put way, way, way too much effort typing up these replies to your zero-effort responses.


[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 4:10:09 PM

Greece and most of Europe.

Quote :

"It is not connected to the value of the product you produce "

Most NON UNION businesses pay their most productive MORE than the rest. Do you disagree? Or are you suggesting that the vast majority of businesses will fire their highest producer to bring in somone without experience simply because they cost less? I know companies in financial trouble will sometime have to downsize, but I dont think that comes remotely close to the idea you are trying to sell.

What do you think that graph proves? I know you hate the idea of theory vs reality, but let me fill you in on a business lesson. THe most important ISSUE for ANY business (not a govt entity) is that their income be greater than expenses. PERIOD. You can talk all day long about how we should provide this and that for employees, on and on, but then go and buy a foreign brand bc the american brand just costs too much and is crap. You simply cant have it both ways. Im sorry.

2/22/2012 4:26:56 PM

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/images/2010_trend_chart_2.gif



Since you like graphs.

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

And this nonsense of taxing the rich to make up the difference. (despite MATH telling you it isnt enough) Well just look over to Europe for how the real world works. They are the results of your utopia. A new 50% tax bracket was put in to "The Liberal Democrats have insisted that it must stay because it is important to demonstrate that the rich are paying their fair share." Well revenues are actually DOWN.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9097219/50p-tax-rate-failing-to-boost-revenues.html

But im SURE it will work here. You have it all figured out.

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 5:17:13 PM

Quote :

"Yes, that is exactly how Capitalists justify this:"

no capitalist forces you at gunpoint to buy his shit. well, until he uses the government to do it. your attempt failed miserably. as usual.

Quote :

"Well for starters: [unions are down]"

And we see what good unions have done for manufacturing, making it so damned expensive to have a factory here in the US that the companies simply move the factory overseas, ship it here, and it's STILL cheaper than paying some chucklefuck with no HS degree $30/hr to push a button.

Quote :

"Seriously? Do you think we have 9% unemployment because people are lazy? Do you think 3/4 of food stamp recipients have work (either with low wages or not enough hours) because they get bored of the apparent heaven that is welfare?"

no, I think we borrowed against the future and the bill just came due.


^ and all of that is despite that fact that it's already been shown that taxing the rich out of every last penny of income still won't solve the budget problems.

2/22/2012 10:19:17 PM

Quote :

" Redistribution can definitely increase growth and productivity. If money is sitting the coffers of a rich person who is not spending it, that's essentially money that is absent from the economy. If you hand it to a person who is more likely to spend it quickly (Such as in the middle or lower classes) then that spending creates demand, which creates jobs, which speeds up growth. Money doesn't exert the same demand regardless of the pocket it's in."

You do realize our entire economy is based on a banking system that loans out money 10 to 1 on deposits? Even if a rich person has $1 million in the bank "doing nothing" then $10 million is out in the economy.

2/23/2012 10:15:41 AM

^ Not if there's no incentive to lend, from an individual perspective

2/23/2012 10:45:00 AM

Quote :

"Most NON UNION businesses pay their most productive MORE than the rest. Do you disagree? Or are you suggesting that the vast majority of businesses will fire their highest producer to bring in somone without experience simply because they cost less? I know companies in financial trouble will sometime have to downsize, but I dont think that comes remotely close to the idea you are trying to sell."

All businesses pay their employees as little as they can without the employee leaving, and charge their customers as much as possible without them going to a competitor. This is super fucking basic Capitalism 101 but you maintain this delusion that pay is necessarily linked to performance or productivity, which is more in line with an idealized Marxist Labor Theory of Value.

Quote :

"Well revenues are actually DOWN. "

Your own article states it's due to increased tax evasion. This is like saying anti-murder laws are ineffective because more murderers will flee to Mexico to avoid prosecution. And again, you completely ignored me explaining, in much detail, that the point of these taxes isn't to pay the debt off, but to go into programs that bring people into the middle class, keep people already there stable, and make the entire economy more stable and productive as a result.

Quote :

"Since you like graphs so much"

Uh, okay, thanks for finding a second source for me. Here's a third


It's almost as though it keeps climbing, except during and immediately after recessions (2001, 2007). So if we want to get that ratio down to where it was in, say, the 50's through 70's when the US was most prosperous, we just need to have a recession that lasts 10-20 years!

Seriously, I have never seen somebody stretch his neck so hard to lick the very boot stamping on his head, and you don't even do a good job of it.

[Edited on February 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2012 10:49:19 AM

Quote :

" ^ Not if there's no incentive to lend, from an individual perspective"

What the hell? It is lended in the form of buying company and government bonds that both use for new business or programs. That'd why banks only have 1/10th of their deposits.

[Edited on February 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM. Reason : aa]

2/23/2012 10:58:31 AM

Quote :

"You do realize our entire economy is based on a banking system that loans out money 10 to 1 on deposits? Even if a rich person has $1 million in the bank "doing nothing" then $10 million is out in the economy."

This holds for poor peoples' money in the bank too, and is a constant factor at all times. Not sure what you think you're disproving, unless you think banks gleefully loan out like madmen regardless of the economic climate because "HEY 10:1 ratio is basically infinity, right??"

Also, fun fact, fractional reserve banking was invented by goldsmiths.

2/23/2012 11:02:52 AM

Quote :

"All businesses pay their employees as little as they can without the employee leaving, and charge their customers as much as possible without them going to a competitor. This is super fucking basic Capitalism 101 but you maintain this delusion that pay is necessarily linked to performance or productivity"

You actually make a valid point with the first part but then try to tie it to the second part which is where you mess up.

Again it goes back to the basic formula that all businesses (not linked to govt) have to obey. Profits have to be greater than expenses. So you state that businesses want to keep their expenses down, and try to increase revenues....bravo. But you are simply ignoring the fact that the business relies on their employees being productive. Most have incentives to be exactly that. To simply state that every business will fire any employee bc someone is willing to work for cheaper is absurd. I suppose you have never attempted to leave a company only to have them offer you more money to stay? Well you might not have, but im sure you have heard of that happening.

As for your graph, let me ask you what changed during those Clinton years? Also the numbers arent the same as the unions graph. Although the trend is the same.

Yes, im licking the boot holding me down. Ive gotten such a shitty life. I would be much more successful if I had made worse choices in my life and evil companies didnt pay their bosses so much. Logic for the win.

May I ask what industry you work in.

[Edited on February 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2012 11:03:32 AM

Quote :

"All businesses pay their employees as little as they can without the employee leaving, and charge their customers as much as possible without them going to a competitor. This is super fucking basic Capitalism 101 but you maintain this delusion that pay is necessarily linked to performance or productivity, which is more in line with an idealized Marxist Labor Theory of Value."

Nope. Information asymmetry, remember? The employer doesn't know how little they can pay the employee. Employers very rarely lower pay of current employees, and if they do, the employee is likely to start looking for other work immediately.

2/23/2012 11:04:11 AM

Quote :

" This holds for poor peoples' money in the bank too, and is a constant factor at all times. Not sure what you think you're disproving, unless you think banks gleefully loan out like madmen regardless of the economic climate because "HEY 10:1 ratio is basically infinity, right??" Also, fun fact, fractional reserve banking was invented by goldsmiths."

I was just disputing the notion that money is there doing nothing. My point is ccapital is still moving around and people aren't hiring. Wonder why?

2/23/2012 11:09:06 AM

Quote :

"And again, you completely ignored me explaining, in much detail, that the point of these taxes isn't to pay the debt off, but to go into programs that bring people into the middle class(the formerly rich), keep people already there stable(until the revenue dries up that props them up), and make the entire economy more stable and productive as a result(until you run out of others peoples money. Greece/Europe is looking pretty stable..lets do that.) "

2/23/2012 11:22:10 AM

Quote :

"Nope. Information asymmetry, remember? The employer doesn't know how little they can pay the employee. Employers very rarely lower pay of current employees, and if they do, the employee is likely to start looking for other work immediately. "

Good point. He also seems to assume everyone has equal abilities. lol Im sure the Patriots could find someone to play QB for a ton less money than Brady...why dont they? In fact they pay him MORE with each contract. It must be the union. haha

2/23/2012 11:49:31 AM

Quote :

"My point is ccapital is still moving around and people aren't hiring. Wonder why?"

No consumer market

2/23/2012 2:02:08 PM

The problem isn't just unemployment, it's unemployability. People have been routed into fields where there is little or no demand. Part of the blame belongs on the broken student loan model, where a degree is purchased with borrowed money at a cost that exceeds real value. In a free market, you would almost assuredly see a lower interest rate loan for an engineering student when compared to an art history student. And, more than likely, you wouldn't even be able to get a loan for art history. As a result, tuition for these lower value degrees would come down to match expected income potential.

Incentives do matter, although some have claimed that shifting around money is a sustainable fix. Excess or sub-optimally allocated credit will distort the market.

2/23/2012 2:38:01 PM

^Yea, I've heard from several people that the demand for skilled trade labor (plumbers, electricians, welders, etc.) exceeds the supply.

I wish I could get some accurate data on it.

I've started to become disgusted with this notion that every single person needs to go to college to be successful. This dogma, coupled with the government back student loan bubble, is a big factor in our economic woes, IMO.

2/23/2012 2:43:32 PM

^^

Bing.

2/23/2012 3:21:07 PM

^^ i have several relatives in the commercial utilities trades and they seem to stay employed and do well (50-70k for commercial HVAC, plumbers, welders)

2/24/2012 10:57:36 AM

Quote :

"People have been routed into fields where there is little or no demand. "

Quote :

"I wish I could get some accurate data on it."

You can't, because by definition data that supports a lie is inaccurate.





Herp a derp derp the problem is too many Women's Studies degrees, I know this is true because it's a fashionably cynical position and makes me appear Very Serious that this is a concern of mine! Real world? Nope never heard of it, I just know that colleges have lots of liberal arts degrees with silly names and so that's probably a Very Big Problem for the economy! Also, inflation!!!!

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2012 11:00:00 AM

This is my favorite Str8Foolish tactic. Post some graphs, assert that they prove his argument (which is nowhere to be found), and hope that no one will read or understand them.

Those graphs, unfortunately, are totally irrelevant. Labor quality really only applies to those that are actually qualified. Those without qualifications are not even considered. So, try again. You're delusional if you don't accept that there are thousands of students graduating every year with degrees that do not qualify them for much of anything. You couldn't be more naive.

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ]

2/24/2012 11:31:25 AM

Quote :

"Labor quality really only applies to those that are actually qualified. Those without qualifications are not even considered."

Source, please.


[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2012 11:38:31 AM

Quote :

"You do realize our entire economy is based on a banking system that loans out money 10 to 1 on deposits? Even if a rich person has $1 million in the bank "doing nothing" then $10 million is out in the economy."

Well this is poor use of macro if I've ever seen one.

The money supply is the money supply. If someone can lend money "out of thin air" then the entire point is that they may increase the money supply for the purposes of the loan.

You know how else we can increase the money supply? By increasing the money supply. Print cash. There is no magic economic effect afforded by banks making money off money in circulation. Likewise, there is no magic economic effect from people making interest on T-bills.

The discussion about fiat currencies can go either way. I'm agnostic about the proposition of having a fiat currency in the first place. It has no intrinsic value, it's a way for a central bank to influence the economy, and it's something for the government to base transactions in - we all get this. Feel how you want about it. What I have a problem with is individualist capitalists make money off the government issued money supply. That is (and should be) infuriating.

You seem to think the government is creating some kind of value by giving this gift to the banks. That's wrong.

2/24/2012 11:39:09 AM

Yea, I don't really understand the point of those graphs either.

Of course, sales is always the most important issue to businesses. If sales are high enough to be profitable, then the next issue that effects profitability will take importance.

And, since unemployment is so high and there's been a reduction in the confidence of consumers to spend, sales has increased in importance. That's a no brainer.

The question now is if adding to our debt to artificially stimulate consumer demand will be constructive, or if it will just dig the hole deeper and provide a temporary fix.

2/24/2012 11:42:17 AM

Quote :

"You seem to think the government is creating some kind of value by giving this gift to the banks. That's wrong."

Is the difference in interest rates between the fed & the banks and the banks rate to consumers, not an artificial creation of value?

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM. Reason : quote]

2/24/2012 11:44:05 AM

Quote :

"Yea, I don't really understand the point of those graphs either."

Maybe they have something to do with the statements that directly precede them, where people allege the the issue of sales is secondary to "too many people getting college degrees, silly ones, and not being qualified for jobs."

Quote :

"Of course, sales is always the most important issue to businesses."

No, it's not. Look at the graph, it is not always the most important issue. It is right now, and is of the highest important it's been in more than 25 years. In the past, other issues have been rated the most important.

Quote :

" If sales are high enough to be profitable, then the next issue that effects profitability will take importance."

You can't profit from high sales if what you're selling isn't profitable to sell. Perhaps there's a bunch of factors preceding high sales, such as those in that graph. That graph, you know, the one that shows that right now concern about sales is uniquely high, historically speaking, and if anything is the defining characteristic of this period. While concerns about labor quality is at a historic low.

Quote :

"And, since unemployment is so high and there's been a reduction in the confidence of consumers to spend, sales has increased in importance. "

Uh, no, there's been a reduction in the ABILITY of consumers to spend, because they don't have jobs and aren't making money and those that DO have jobs are making roughly the same wages they have for the past 30 years.

Quote :

"The question now is if adding to our debt to artificially stimulate consumer demand will be constructive, or if it will just dig the hole deeper and provide a temporary fix."

Actually, before we get into this, the question is how you can be so focused on your clearly-incorrect a priori reasoning when there is data staring you in the face that directly contradicts it.



[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2012 11:47:14 AM

Quote :

"Source, please."

No source needed, we're working on logical assumptions now. If I'm a firm looking for an engineer and I get a resume from a guy with a B.A. that has impeccable references, solid work history, and seems to be an excellent worker, it doesn't matter - he's not an engineer. We need someone that actually has the education necessary to do the job.

Quote :

"What I have a problem with is individualist capitalists make money off the government issued money supply. That is (and should be) infuriating."

This is what our entire banking system is based off of. The Fed is not creating money and pumping it into infrastructure. The money is being borrowed by the Fed's primary dealers at a .25%, and they are turning around and loaning it out at 2-30%.

Quote :

"Maybe they have something to do with the statements that directly precede them, where people allege the the issue of sales is secondary to "too many people getting college degrees, silly ones, and not being qualified for jobs.""

Read what I wrote. I say that part of the blame belongs on the student loan model, and it is does.

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ]

2/24/2012 11:51:46 AM

Notice how the last time labor quality concerns were super high were during the tech bubble. Maybe that had something to do with the fact that an extremely profitable industry was booming but people were only just starting to get educated in the disciplines that drove it. Hmmm, then the tech bubble burst while the number of CS graduates skyrocketed. It's almost as though we're now in a *surplus* of certain skilled professions relative to the demands of the labor market.

2/24/2012 11:51:53 AM

Quote :

"No source needed, we're working on logical assumptions now. If I'm a firm looking for an engineer and I get a resume from a guy with a B.A. that has impeccable references, solid work history, and seems to be an excellent worker, it doesn't matter - he's not an engineer."

This is making a logical assumption about a firm's perspective, not a logical assumption about what "Labor Quality" means in those graphs. Please try again.

I mean really, your assertion here is that "Labor Quality" refers to "People who are qualified for this job, but are not good at this job." and now you're telling me about logic, bwahahahaha

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2012 11:53:02 AM

you heard the man



drink it up bitches

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ,]

2/24/2012 11:53:09 AM

Not cool dude you're breaking the tables.

2/24/2012 11:54:55 AM

Quote :

"Maybe they have something to do with the statements that directly precede them, where people allege the the issue of sales is secondary to "too many people getting college degrees, silly ones, and not being qualified for jobs.""

I don't see the connection you are trying to establish.

The argument is that too many people are going in to student loan debt with unmarketable degrees. Degrees that do not qualify them for Jobs that are in demand, like trade labor or technology.

Quote :

"No, it's not. Look at the graph, it is not always the most important issue. It is right now, and is of the highest important it's been in more than 25 years. In the past, other issues have been rated the most important."

You fail to understand my point. If sales are high enough to establish profitability, obviously an other factors will garner more importance if they impact profitability more.

Quote :

"You can't profit from high sales if what you're selling isn't profitable to sell. Perhaps there's a bunch of factors preceding high sales, such as those in that graph. That graph, you know, the one that shows that right now concern about sales is uniquely high, historically speaking, and if anything is the defining characteristic of this period. While concerns about labor quality is at a historic low."

Do you have any experience in business at all? There's a couple concepts called fixed and variable costs. Sales must meet a threshold to cover fixed costs. If you are not selling enough to cover fixed costs, profitability is impossible. Hence why an initial sales volume is required for any business to survive.

Variable costs like taxes, cost of labor, cost of goods, etc. are important, but secondary to minimum sales volume.

Quote :

"Actually, before we get into this, the question is how you can be so focused on your clearly-incorrect a priori reasoning when there is data staring you in the face that directly contradicts it."

Please, humor me. Outline the data the is staring me right in the face that clashes with anything I've just stated.

The stuff you've posted simply graphs the importance of sales, relative to other issues. Of course if sales decline to a faltering economy, sales importance will increase to cover fixed costs.

2/24/2012 11:58:40 AM

Quote :

"I mean really, your assertion here is that "Labor Quality" refers to "People who are qualified for this job, but are not good at this job." and now you're telling me about logic, bwahahahaha"

I don't have a problem with that statement. You don't complain about the quality of plumbers when you're looking to hire a pilot.

2/24/2012 11:59:12 AM

Quote :

"The argument is that too many people are going in to student loan debt with unmarketable degrees. Degrees that do not qualify them for Jobs that are in demand, like trade labor or technology."

And the graphs clearly show that "Labor Quality" concerns are at an all time fucking low. What do you think labor quality means? Why do you think "Labor Quality" concerns were last high during the booming of a new industry with very few qualified professionals?

Quote :

"You fail to understand my point. If sales are high enough to establish profitability, obviously an other factors will garner more importance if they impact profitability more."

No, you fail to understand economics. You can sell an infinite number of dongles, but if it costs more to produce them than to sell them, you will not profit. If you can't find the labor to build them in the first place, you will not profit.

Quote :

"Do you have any experience in business at all? "

I've never tried to cite my own experience. I'm citing polls conducted of business owners. Do you think they have experience in business?

Quote :

"Please, humor me. Outline the data the is staring me right in the face that clashes with anything I've just stated."

The data that clearly shows Labor Quality is the least concern its been of business in more than 25 years. As is inflation. As is taxes. As is regulation. As is just about every other cost.

Quote :

"The stuff you've posted simply graphs the importance of sales, relative to other issues. Of course if sales decline to a faltering economy, sales importance will increase to cover fixed costs."

It's not just about the importance of sales, look at what the other concerns are and how they move.

Do you have anything resembling data to support a single thing you've said? Some of us like to do more than a priori theorizing, it'd really help the discussing if you backed up what you say with anything aside from your own intuitions.

2/24/2012 12:04:38 PM

Quote :

"I don't have a problem with that statement. You don't complain about the quality of plumbers when you're looking to hire a pilot."

So please show me some kind of indication that "Labor Quality" excludes skill mismatch.

I have a job opening, laborers come to apply, their quality is a combination of their skills and experience. If the laborers coming in to apply lack skills, they are of poor quality. Assuming that distinction is real between labor quality and skill mismatch, wouldn't that go in the "other" category of that graph?



[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2012 12:05:30 PM