Private businesses don't do research, huh? Ever hear of 3M?
Gov't intervention into the "research business" does not increase research overall, but merely directs it into gov't approved lines. Same as with any gov't intervention.
OH WOW. Okay, haters, listen up: business owners know EXACTLY how much each employee makes their company. It's business 101! True, there's no "value" in sweeping the floor, which is why it's known it's not making 9 dollars an hour. So, the business owner has a right to protect his business! The minimum wage is nothing more than a half hearted attempt to remove "paying dues". In any worthy job you have a period of learning, growing, and getting promoted. Wage setting attempts to bypass that.
I know you can measure the laborer's work because it is directly related to productivity and supply and etc., but how do you measure a janitor's profitability?
@Altimadark Sorry for the bad wording, but yeah, I meant that Edgar gets $4/hour from Simon's work, minus the $3 he uses to pay him.
You're right that he's not a janitor, but a trainee, but I still have the same question. While he's a trainee, is he really doing anything productive towards the factory's supply? Let's say he only sweeps up and learns the job from his supervisors--how do you measure his profitability?
@anvita99 As with all things economic, it's an estimate. Nobody, neither Edgar, nor Simon, nor some distant government bureaucrats know the exact value of Simon's labor.
Thinking it over, the issue with Simon is not that he produces X dollars and is paid Y; it's that he is a marginal worker. He's the last group of people to be hired if a company needs more employees, and the first to be fired if the company has to downsize.
@anvita99 Easy for cost and managerial accountants. We have to allocate costs to all sorts of stuff, and placing profitability of a janitor would be no different. It would probably be backed into by saying that we can measure how productivity goes down in a given year without the cleaning services or maybe it accelerates depreciation on various plant assets. Then, you determine how much how much a person ought to be paid to offset this determined loss in productivity due to the lack of cleaning.
@Philasaurus I didn't realize a factory could get away with having no cleaning services, due to federal regulations and whatnot for worker safety and health. I suppose specific factories can survive without cleanliness. Thanks :)
@Philasaurus I didn't realize a factory could get away with having no cleaning services, due to federal regulations and whatnot for worker safety and health. I suppose certain factories can survive without cleanliness.
@Philasaurus I didn't realize a factory could get away without having cleaning services, due to federal regulations and whatnot for worker safety and health. I suppose certain factories can survive without cleanliness.
@anvita99 "but how do you measure a janitor's profitability?"
In the video we know the marginal revenue products of the different workers. In real life measuring marginal revenue product is often not very practical. Nevertheless the employer still implicitly weighs expected/estimated revenue product against the cost of wages when deciding whether to employ a person or not. And if he expects them to cost more than they generate, they won't be hired.
Fuck Edgar if he won't pay people what they are worth. So poor Edgar will be forced to go and screw workers in ANOTHER country if he is not allowed to screw workers HERE??? I repeat, fuck Edgar. As bitbutter says, in comments here, Edgar may find his own people co-operating to compete with him, he certainly won't get any loyalty. This video glorifies wage slavery. Many countries have introduced minimum wage and have NOT suffered for it. Everyone deserves the respect a decent income provides.
@bitbutter If an employer can exploit its workers it will, that's just how it is. With a certain percentage being required to be paid, it fixes the only problem with minimum wage that you mention in the video. It will encourage workers to work harder because their wage would increase if they find a way to increase their own efficiency. But perhaps you can humor me and tell me how you think we could prevent Americans from receiving Foxconn wages.
@ChakraKnot "But perhaps you can humor me and tell me how you think we could prevent Americans from receiving Foxconn wages."
The same way as wages and working conditions improved during and just after the industrial revolution: allowing natural competition between employers. That means removing the myriad artificial barriers to entry currently in place that hamper small firms.
@bitbutter I don't think a percentage would be a barrier, workers should receive a certain percentage of what they make. Doing so in no way prevents a business from being profitable.
@ChakraKnot You didn't address my response. Do you understand why your proposal would still trigger marginal firms to relocate overseas or mechanize--giving the same result: harming the most marginal workers?
@bitbutter because it would still be profitable. If they can make a machine that is more efficient with this cap in place they should do so. Importing work will cost them more than the wage limit.
@ChakraKnot Apologies, I misunderstood you. The point remains that at any given cap on the ability to profit, some firms will mechanize or relocate. At that point, workers like simon will suffer.
@bitbutter Small business will likely take the place of the business that try to import work. If mechanization can be done that profitably, with the higher skilled labor required to do so, then it should only serve to help the economy. I think this would even increase productivity as an employee who works hard will be required to be given a higher wage. I'm sure you would agree that what I'm proposing is at least a better idea than the current system
@bitbutter The reason wages increased so fast was the amazingly large room that America had for expansion. Today, there are already giant corporations for most services, so little room is left.
@ChakraKnot Do you understand how competition between employers, for employees, constitutes an upward pressure on wages and improving working conditions?
@bitbutter It would still be profitable here with a %, perhaps moreso than importing their workers. Mechanization is a good thing if it can be that efficient.
@bitbutter If productivity is low, the pay for the employees would be low. What I was suggesting would never make employers be required to pay more than they gained.
@bitbutter "This proposal would still trigger marginal firms to relocate overseas or mechanize--giving the same result: harming the most marginal workers."
If an employer was required to provide wages of 50% of productivity, would they still do this? What about 25%? A wage cap at some level should not hurt the economy as employers should be providing a certain amount to their workers in the first place.
Thats also very harmful as you mess with supply and demand, but i think it would work a bit better. Let us not aim for lesser evils, but a free-er economy.
Man, that cloud is freaky as hell. Also, this video is accurate, but you have to have a free market for competition to occur. Due to government favors and the shitty economy ( thanks again, government), competition is currently shit, which leads to monopolistic behavior, which is bad for labor. Great video. I bet that cloud gives good blowjobs.
@TheSkunkCat You're clearly an insane socialist with no sense of economics AKA the reason I despise democracy. You think you can just get a gang of people and rob me and take your arbitrary fair share. That's why guns are so important :)
@TheSkunkCat Also, if you think an idea is wrong just because you don't like the person who proposed it makes you very foolish indeed. Even a broken clock is right twice a day right?
I also find it quite interesting that no where does this video ever mention that Simon cannot possibly actually survive off the minimum wage in modern society. That it's a recipe for him getting into bigger and bigger debts.
Honestly my respect for Qualiasoup just diminished to zero. It seems we must be enemies. Because I oppose anyone who'd bring back the horrors of the 1800's with this sort of bullshit.
@TheSkunkCat Bring back the horrors? Do you even know what horrors were being escaped? The productivity increases and rises in living standards increased so much during that period. How about you actually crack open a book instead of regurgitating invalidated socialist talking points.
We kill Edgar, who's superflous and who's wealth gives him disproportionate power which he WILL abuse to suit his own ends. And we bring democracy to labour as well.
Edgar is both unnecessary as a component, and actively harmful. Let the workers run the factory, and spend some of the money on offering free education instead for the Simons.
@TheSkunkCat "Edgar is both unnecessary as a component"
Edgar personally bore the risk of creating the factory and waiting many years before his investment costs were recouped. The workers could band together and invest in their own factory, taking a similar risk. The fact that they don't, and work for Edgar instead demonstrates that they value what he offers them, that they prefer not to (or cannot) take that risk themselves. From their perspective at least Edgar is certainly not superfluous.
@TheSkunkCat You don't need to kill Edgar. The factory workers can all simply form a cooperative, where they each own a share of the business. That way, they will collectively have power to fire the people like Edgar, who really aren't needed, and sub contract out labour at better rates for the jobs that are needed. Since all of the workers get paid a proportion of the total profit, it's in their business to only work with productive people, so productivity also increases.
Edgar could also pay Vikki and Bob less and take less for his share, which would effectively redistribute everyone's income at the factory. I think that outcome is far more probable, but still not a good thing. The government needs to leave business's alone and let them compete without regulative distortion.
And lastly there is assumption that minimal wage woudl have to apply even to inexperience workers wich is not true.Shoudl it be only damaging to fresh labour force an alternative form
of contract for them can be introced.One that bears less restriction and allows them to gain experience.
Furthermore the minimal wage is not set in stone and it is uassaly adjusted either periodicly
or when the need arises.Also minimal wage is caculet and based upon livig expenditures and requirements.So in essence if Simon earns enough to support himself the minimal wage shoudl not exeed his current salary,unless ofcourse he's a hobo livig under a bridge and feeding from the trash can.
Utter libertarian bullshit.Mimimum wage have been introduced because average man was earning
barely enough to live by.Even China have introduced it some time ago.As always the real issue is not wenever minimal wage gives positive or negative effects.It's about goverment regulation wich to libertarians transale to evil incarnate,regardles if it's beneficial or not.
It's the very same principle that drove the communism to it's shalow grave.
@Kharmazov The video explains why MW can be expected to hurt marginal workers. If you believe it's incorrect it would be helpful for others if you explain exactly where you think it goes wrong.
I suggest passing a second law prohibiting employers from firing those who end up in this situation.
Such a law would be a threat to absolutely no company at all, only to the paycheck of those who's paycheck is 10 times bigger then the majority of those who work at that company, and that is why they will squeal like pigs.
@founoe How will you enforce this law? What if these people do less work when they realize they can't be fired? What if others take extra min wage jobs for the income, but don't actually do any work while on shift, since they know they can't get fired? What if the company has financial woes and needs to downsize to survive?
@founoe "I suggest passing a second law prohibiting employers from firing those who end up in this situation."
Terrible idea. See Altimadark's comment. Also: consider how this would affect applicants like simon who had not yet found work--the MW already hurts his chances of finding work enormously, if employers knew they couldn't legally fire him after employing him, that would make matters even worse.
"Also: consider how this would affect applicants like simon who had not yet found work"
Yeah...
You know what we should do? Prohibit private people from running companies altogether, and let the state manage all the business while the profits go to the people, instead of some random douchebag who will use the money to promote politicians that will strip the proletariat of their rights in favor of the bourgeois.
@founoe Great, you've just killed entrepreneurship and innovation because the people who would work towards new productive businesses and inventions don't wish to work for nothing. Meanwhile, greed still exists, which you will see as the greedy start to take over government, because government clearly has all the power -- not people, as you seem to think.
"you've just killed entrepreneurship and innovation"
That socialism would cripple innovation is a myth.
"because government clearly has all the power"
No, that would be the exact opposite of what socialism strives for. Well, depending on how you put it. The people should be the government, and the power should lie with the people, so...
@founoe Refuse to pay taxes until the government stop spending tax dollars on things you disagree with. Do you think government will suddenly change its ways? No, more likely they'll send IRS agents, then cops. Keep in mind, you haven't actually hurt anybody. If you try to defend yourself at this point, the government will start sending armed soldiers after you. Government is not "you" or "me" or "the people." Government is force.
"Refuse to pay taxes until the government stop spending tax dollars on things you disagree with."
I suppose. Maybe you could incite a lot of people to join you and hope that the government takes your protest seriously. Or you could avoid the whole illegal business and spread your political opinion though some form of media. If your opinion makes a lot of sense and you portray it well enough, then maybe you can gather enough people to make a cause.
@founoe But what if most people disagree with you? What if most people decide you MUST pay, regardless of what you think? What if more people who think you should pay "become the government" than those that don't?
Conversely, let's say you succeed in becoming the govt. What about everybody else? What if a good percentage (not necessarily a majority, but enough that you can't ignore or jail them) decide they don't like the way you govern?
"What if most people decide you MUST pay, regardless of what you think?"
You're going to have to make those sacrifices to live in a society with other people, and technology.
I've been thinking about the government is force thing, and you're right. In your country the government is not it's people. Capitalism has moved the power from the people to the rich elite. And you guys seriously need to vote for some socialists if you want to take the power back from said group.
@founoe "In your country the government is not it's people."
Government is never 'the people'. Even at it's idealistic mythical best it's simply _a majority_. And in reality (thanks in part to the problem of rational ignorance within representative democracy) it's a ruling minority.
"Capitalism has moved the power from the people to the rich elite."
Not so. The state does that _for_ the rich/politically connected, as we should expect it always will.
There will never be a decent society until this becomes reality.
And I think you have a very skewed view of what government might be. Parliamentary government for example is probably a much better form of government than a republic one. And who's to say that the best form of government has even been conceived of yet?
"Not so"
Yeah, that politicians receive millions to support further tax cuts for the already rich definitely didn't help
@founoe If you want the government to be "the people," you need to shrink government power, not grow it. The closest you could ever get to the government being the people is if there is no government at all, at which point people would simply govern themselves.
"you need to shrink government power, not grow it"
No, that would leave the proletariat defenseless against the bourgeois. A government is needed to keep the upper class' influence and power suppressed, else they would systematically turn the working class into slave workers. Like America has done.
I know you view government as something disembodied to the people, and that is true. But you must understand that I am talking about what a government should be, not what it is
@founoe "I am talking about what a government should be, not what it is"
This is the root of your problem. Reality does not conform itself to your demands, nor anybody else's.
In reality, big government does not suppress the upper class, it bolsters them. In reality, big government does not protect the people's rights, it suppresses them. We see this in the USA, just as we see it in Russia, just as we see it throughout history.
@founoe "A government is needed to keep the upper class' influence and power suppressed, else they would systematically turn the working class into slave workers. Like America has done"
Clue to where you're going wrong: America has a government.
"Why do you think what a government _should_ be is relevant here?"
Because if everyone thought as you did, we'd never get anything better than what we already have.
"So called 'Tax cuts' for the rich are a red herring."
Really? I find them most relevant. Ever since the introduction of "trickle down" economics, "job creators" should have had more freedom to create jobs, and yet the exact opposite has happened.
@founoe "Ever since the introduction of "trickle down" economics, "job creators" should have had more freedom to create jobs, and yet the exact opposite has happened."
Despite local decreases, the clear trend is that the size of the federal register is increasing. The 'regulatory burden' in the US has never been as high as it has been in recent years. (google: "ANOTHER REGULATORY MILESTONE").
"The 'regulatory burden' in the US has never been as high as it has been in recent years"
And yet the wealthiest 99.99% have had their pay increased by 400% in the last 30 years, while the poorest 90% have only gotten a 1% increase. Compared to the 30 years before Regan when the richest had an 80% pay increase while the poorest had 75%.
I don't think regulatory burden actually is much of a burden. I think it's time for America to hang their rich for what they have done.
I'm assuming you mean 0.01%. Could it be that this tiny minority are the beneficiaries of government interference in markets on their behalf? I'd be very surprised if they weren't.
No. 10,585 dollars. More than ten thousand, per employee, annually. If that's not a significant burden, what _would_ be a significant burden in your view?
"Well, personally I'm happy that we left the stone age."
Me too. It's a shame that states are working hard to return us to it.
"while worker pay has remained stagnant."
No it hasn't. Google "The Real "Truth About the Economy:" Have Wages Stagnated?" for details.
"what _would_ be a significant burden in your view?"
Something that is not an arbitrary number. How big of a portion is this of their capital? How high has this digit been in the past? For all I know it could be lower than usual right now.
"Me too. It's a shame that states are working hard to return us to it."
Working together got us out of the stone age. And if we are to advance further we're going to have to keep working together. And to do that we need governments.
"doesn't 10,585 dollars per employee per year strike you as a 'significant burden' anyway?"
Why do you think that this is a lot?
"Why do you believe that we need governments in order to work together?"
My immediate response would be: Because I'm not completely retarded.
My argument would be that in order to advance as a society, humans have to work together. Even free market is a form of working together. And to do that we need laws, roads, health care, etc. - government.
@founoe "And to do that we need laws, roads, health care, etc. - government."
You don't need government for roads and health care. Case in point, Americans used to be able pay for a year of health coverage for a single day's wages. When the government decided to intervene, the cost of health care coverage grew considerably.
And you don't need laws to force people to work together. They can do it on their own. Laws should exist only to deter coercive action, not to be coercive itself.
"don't need government for roads and health care."
Yes, we do. Or else the situation will be like in America where corporations can make a profit from peoples illness, which means the worst thing that can happen is that people get healthy. And they will deny people their lives simply for costing too much.
"laws to force people to work together."
Who said anything about force? Is that what you think government is, something that just forces you here and there? Ridiculous.
@founoe As I just said, the situation with health care in America is *because* of government intrusion.
Government can force you to do business with big corporations when its regulations put newer or smaller competitors out of business. Government can force you into a prison cell or a coffin if you don't pay your taxes. Government is force.
"As I just said, the situation with health care in America is *because* of government intrusion"
No, your problem is that corporations want to earn money from people being ill. And this problem won't be solved until your health care system is completely in the hands of the government.
"Government is force"
And your reaction is to completely dispose of it?
If you sprain your ankle and can't walk on it, you don't cut your foot of because it's not working, you try to fix it
@founoe "No, your problem is that corporations want to earn money from people being ill."
The reason why it's in the hands of those corporations is because of government. Thus, I don't trust them to handle it completely.
"'Government is force'
And your reaction is to completely dispose of it?"
I already said government should be used to deter coercive action, not initiate it. I guess you're not reading everything like you tell other people to do.
@founoe That number also shows us how much more an employee has to produce in order to earn their wages. i.e, a min wage worker must produce at least $12-13/hr in order to earn the $7.5 the minimum wage, assuming 40hr/wk, 50wk/yr. The higher the regulations, the more the worker has to produce to stay on the job.
@founoe Voluntary exchange is what took us from the stone age to where we are today. No government coerced people to invent the wheel, the car, the light bulb, the telephone, the computer, the internet, etc, and it's private enterprise -- people seeking profit -- that made these things available to the common man today.
"No government coerced people to invent the wheel..."
You're using some very situational evidence there. You'd have to be pretty stupid if you don't think that governments were not funding *many* of our greatest discoveries/inventions.
Also, in order for free exchange to work, we depend on laws to protect producers and consumers alike. We need to have a governing body, laws, rules, if any form of serious interaction is to occur.
@founoe That you won't name any besides the LHC tells me that there aren't any to name.
I think the LHC is a very bold project, and I appreciate that it's being far more honest about its doings than any of the governments funding them. That said, it's not a new invention or discovery; it's a particle accelerator, simply scaled up. Also, I don't think government funding was absolutely necessary; if they asked for charitable donations, they'd have about the same amount of funding.
"That you won't name any besides the LHC tells me that there aren't any to name."
I said there are countless of government funded projects. I just thought it was a good example that the most cutting edge science is one of them. Personally, I don't think there is any monetary gain to the LHC, which means the chances of seeing one being built by free enterprise is close to zero.
@founoe I said seek donations. If the LHC is really as great project as you claim, (for the record, I think it *is*) then you shouldn't have a problem finding more than enough people willing to give you money for it, rather than force everybody to pay for it via taxation.
@founoe If you don't even consider to be it a great project; how is it you can claim it's an effective use of taxpayer money?
"...the problem is that people are too dumb to know their own good. We need experts to tell us what we need."
But you said that the government is supposed to be *the people;* how can *the people* be the government when they're too dumb to know their own good? I think you're just saying whatever you have to, rather than admit we don't need govt for most things.
@founoe "I said there are countless of government funded projects."
No, you said there are countless great inventions and/or discoveries which were funded by government.
I already provided a handful of the countless inventions/discoveries that were produced without government coercion; the least you could do is provide a similar list, instead of claiming they're simply "countless."
@founoe You have it backwards. An invention/discovery may be a project, but a project isn't necessarily an invention/discovery. Saying a project is an invention is like saying all red things are apples.
No government told Edison to invent the lightbulb, or Jonas Salk to develop a vaccine.
I've already checked both your and bitbutter's googles. bb is providing actual titles; you only have google searches.
You claim to be interested in "truth," yet you reject history quite a bit. Funny.
@founoe As I recall, the point is that projects (and by extension, government projects) are not necessarily inventions or discoveries. The fact that you have yet to cite any examples of government inventions or projects tells me that you have no examples, and thus there are none.
Nearly 30% of all science conducted in America is funded by it's government.
That might be some useful information. If I named a few things like the internet, teflon or told you to look up National Science Foundation. What would you do with that information? Doesn't mean anything.
@founoe I've already explained how the LHC is neither an invention nor a discovery.
The technology that led to the internet was already well in development before the DoD got involved
Teflon was invented by Roy Plunkett of Kinetic Chemicals. He invented it by accident, so it wasn't even a project.
The NSF isn't that bad, mostly because it keeps politics out, despite being a government organization -- but that begs the question, why does it even need government in the first place?
"I've already explained how the LHC is neither an invention nor a discovery."
I don't think you have, but whatever. It's a tool for making discoveries, big difference.
"Teflon was invented by Roy Plunkett"
Sorry, common misconception.
"why does it even need government in the first place"
Because science for the sake of knowledge gets very little funding from private enterprise. Even thought it's immediate pay off is low, this science often inspire new inventions.
@founoe The LHC is not a new invention; it's just a very large cyclotron. If you count new versions of the same thing to be "inventions," then the auto industry is beating the government easily.
"science for the sake of knowledge gets very little funding from private enterprise."
How did you measure how much funding basic research needs?
Like I said, it's a tool for making new discoveries. I don't think it makes a big difference weather it is a new invention or not. It's a science project, the most advanced in the world, and it's funded by governments.
"How did you measure how much funding basic research needs?"
Why are you assuming that is the only method of knowing this?
How do I know? Because it simply does not happen. Private enterprise does not, or very rarely, invest in something that is unlikely to yield a direct benefit. That is why we need government to do those investments for us, to open up new fields that can yield a direct benefit.
@founoe "Private enterprise does not, or very rarely, invest in something that is unlikely to yield a direct benefit."
SRI International, RAND Corporation, HMMI, Monell Chemical Research Center, Bitterroot Basic Research, and Guidestar are all private firms engaged in basic research. Took me 5 minutes to look them up.
So I ask, how can you claim the private sector doesn't engage in enough basic research such that we need government to get involved?
"So I ask, how can you claim the private sector doesn't engage in enough basic research such that we need government to get involved?"
I don't know if you noticed, but all you did was to name a few organizations that handles basic research. But this says nothing. Government funded basic research is vastly bigger.
It says that the private sector engages in basic research on its own, contrary to your claim:
"Private enterprise does not, or very rarely, invest in something that is unlikely to yield a direct benefit. That is why we need government to do those investments for us,"
You claimed we need government to engage in basic research because the private sector does not, a reason I just disproved. Why do we need government involved in basic research at all?
What do you have there, 7 businesses that do basic research? How many businesses do not conduct basic research? Well, it's a lot.
"Why do we need government involved in basic research at all?"
Private business is much less likely than government to fund basic research. If government weren't there to fill in the holes, science would advance at a much slower rate.
@founoe "How many businesses do not conduct basic research? Well, it's a lot."
So? There are a lot of businesses that *don't* produce energy, provide insurance, produce food, design computers, etc... We don't have a shortage of these things just because most firms don't work on them, and the same goes for basic research.
"If government weren't there to fill in the holes, science would advance at a much slower rate."
"We don't have a shortage of these things just because most firms don't work on them"
That's not even the same thing!
Science isn't a consumable product. Who ever goes: "Lads, we've produced 'enough' science for this year! Now we can sit back and wait for the next science season!"
"What do you base your speculation on?"
The fact that nearly no basic science is being made by private business because it yields very low profit.
"your claim that government intervention leads to more basic research"
I do not claim this.
My claim is that out of all basic science being made, government funds far more of it than private business do.
Kealey writes, among other things, that businesses who conduct basic science grows in productivity - investing in basic science is good for business, in other words.
@founoe "The fact that nearly no basic science is being made by private business"
Can you point to any records of basic science funding sources that corroborate your claim that 'nearly no basic science is being made by private business'?
"Can you point to any records of basic science funding sources that corroborate your claim that 'nearly no basic science is being made by private business'?"
Yes.
Remember that you told me to google "End Government Science Funding"?
Google it yourself and look at the "who pays for science" article from berkeley, or even the wikipedia article "Funding of science", which both can be seen just under Kealey's article.
@founoe Berkley article points out funding may introduce bias. You can already see this from government-sponsored research, when they have to do research on what is politically expedient rather than what interests the researcher.
The Wiki article states that the private sector executes over 70% of research, while government only executes about 12.2% No statistics are given to distinguish basic research from applied research; the only thing I could find was a statement without citation.
"Berkley article points out funding may introduce bias..."
Yeah, bias in PRIVATE FUNDING!
"Drug research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is more likely to end up favoring the drug under consideration than studies sponsored by government"
What you just said about researchers being swayed by outside pressure is true, only it's PRIVATE BUSINESS that does that, NOT the government.
@founoe I just told you how government funding introduces its own bias, but if you want an account of this, check out Tibor R. Machan's article, "Bias in Government Science."
@founoe (Machan) "politicians funnel money to the universities of their region instead of institutions where the research might be done most competently."
So I see you didn't even read the article.
"prime example of business science"
What about the non-profit organizations which devote their organizations exclusively to basic science? That's part of the private sector, too.
I did. But: "they have to do research on what is politically expedient rather than what interests the researcher."
Has absolutely nothing to do with: "politicians funnel money to the universities of their region instead of institutions where the research might be done most competently."
And speaking of not reading the articles, how biased are you when the Berkley article brings up company bias, which you ignore, and go on about government bias?
@founoe "how biased are you when the Berkley article brings up company bias, which you ignore, and go on about government bias?"
I never ignored nor denied "company bias." You, on the other hand, have ignored non-profit research organizations (who likely do of the most basic research done by the private sector) and denied bias stemming from government funding.
Yes you did. You said: "Berkley article points out funding may introduce bias. You can already see this from government-sponsored research"
When in fact, the Berkley article pointed out company bias. And I gotta wonder what the hell the point of this discussion is if you're going to ignore all the facts that prove you wrong and switch the subject. Which is also the reason I have yet not addressed any of Machan's points.
@founoe Read it again. I wasn't quoting Berkley, nor did I claim they were talking about government bias. I said they brought up funding bias, and I said that this included government funding.
"if you're going to ignore all the facts that prove you wrong"
Which facts? That you ignore nonprofits, ignore govt bias, ignore history in favor of wishful thinking, think that the private sector only cares about profit, or think that people are stupid, but should also be the govt?
"nor did I claim they were talking about government bias."
That's right, you started talking about government bias. That was right after you ignored company bias that the Berkley article pointed out, then you switched the subject to government bias, and THEN you accuse ME of ignoring the facts.
Sir, you need to explain company bias before you may move on to other points.
But you are ignoring the facts; you continue to say the private sector won't fund basic research because of a lack of a profit motive, despite the facts that not only does the private sector have firms focus solely on basic research, but also that the profit motive isn't the only motive the private sector has.
"you need to explain company bias"
Why? I haven't defended company bias. You, on the other hand, are defending government bias.
@founoe "if we are to advance further we're going to have to keep working together. And to do that we need governments."
This counterpoint occurred to me: If you want people to work together, why would you point to government as the solution? The US government, and the two-party system in particular, has been pitting the populace against itself almost as long as the country has existed.
"If you want people to work together, why would you point to government as the solution?"
Because people who live in close proximity to each other and interact with each other have to have reinforced laws against murder and stealing for example. And that is where people representing larger groups of people in order to determine such laws come from.
"The US government, and the two-party system in particular..."
Yes, that government is a particularly stupid one.
@founoe Most people choose not to steal and murder because it's morally reprehensible, not because the law says it's wrong. Now, there are people who will do it anyway, and it's in these situations where police and the like are good and necessary things, but I cannot believe that it's the law, and only the law, which keeps you from killing your friends and coworkers at the drop of a hat.
What?! Are you even thinking before you type these comments?
Listen to yourself, you're saying that people murder each other despite the laws against it, and this would, according to you, mean that all the effort to stop people from committing murder is completely pointless.
Yeah right, let's remove the laws and the police. I'm SURE the murder rates will stay approximately THE SAME.
@founoe Are you even reading the comments before you reply to them? You implied people needed law to tell them theft and murder are wrong; I said most people don't need law to tell them that.
But let's go with your scenario. Without laws, people would naturally seek protection; they'd buy guns, form militias, etc. A good example of this would be what most call the Old West. There was actually less crime per capita back then than there is today, when there were *fewer* gun restrictions.
@Altimadark "I said most people don't need law to tell them that" And you think we should remove such laws because 'most' people follow them, and that people murder despite of them? You can't be fucking serious! "they'd buy guns" People without police training playing police. At least that will clear out the gene pool a little bit. "form militias" Yes. People will naturally form governments like this "Old West" I'll just inform you that you're comparing societies 100 years appart
My friend, the problem are unions today, not owners.
Dont you hate people who are biased?
theawesomebeliever 22 hours ago
@theawesomebeliever Who are you addressing this to?
bitbutter 18 minutes ago
fuck this commie shit.
johnwerneken 3 days ago
Private businesses don't do research, huh? Ever hear of 3M?
Gov't intervention into the "research business" does not increase research overall, but merely directs it into gov't approved lines. Same as with any gov't intervention.
cavalier973 4 days ago
OH WOW. Okay, haters, listen up: business owners know EXACTLY how much each employee makes their company. It's business 101! True, there's no "value" in sweeping the floor, which is why it's known it's not making 9 dollars an hour. So, the business owner has a right to protect his business! The minimum wage is nothing more than a half hearted attempt to remove "paying dues". In any worthy job you have a period of learning, growing, and getting promoted. Wage setting attempts to bypass that.
bpopson1 5 days ago
How do you know that Edgar generates $4 an hour?
I know you can measure the laborer's work because it is directly related to productivity and supply and etc., but how do you measure a janitor's profitability?
anvita99 6 days ago 3
@anvita99 I presume you meant Simon, not Edgar, who owns the factory.
Simon is not a janitor, he's a trainee. The video says he's new at the job, and he is (or was) set to learn how to use a forming machine.
Altimadark 5 days ago
@Altimadark Sorry for the bad wording, but yeah, I meant that Edgar gets $4/hour from Simon's work, minus the $3 he uses to pay him.
You're right that he's not a janitor, but a trainee, but I still have the same question. While he's a trainee, is he really doing anything productive towards the factory's supply? Let's say he only sweeps up and learns the job from his supervisors--how do you measure his profitability?
anvita99 5 days ago
@anvita99 As with all things economic, it's an estimate. Nobody, neither Edgar, nor Simon, nor some distant government bureaucrats know the exact value of Simon's labor.
Thinking it over, the issue with Simon is not that he produces X dollars and is paid Y; it's that he is a marginal worker. He's the last group of people to be hired if a company needs more employees, and the first to be fired if the company has to downsize.
Altimadark 5 days ago
@Altimadark Thank you for your answer! Please continue and enjoy being intelligent ^_^
anvita99 5 days ago
@anvita99 Simon could have been doing anything menial and it would have still been "unskilled labour." The job of janitor was just an example.
CrOeDdE 5 days ago
@CrOeDdE I was using it as an example, too.
He is performing a service on which no price tag can be set, yet this video managed to do so. Curious.
anvita99 5 days ago
@anvita99 Easy for cost and managerial accountants. We have to allocate costs to all sorts of stuff, and placing profitability of a janitor would be no different. It would probably be backed into by saying that we can measure how productivity goes down in a given year without the cleaning services or maybe it accelerates depreciation on various plant assets. Then, you determine how much how much a person ought to be paid to offset this determined loss in productivity due to the lack of cleaning.
Philasaurus 5 days ago
@Philasaurus I didn't realize a factory could get away with having no cleaning services, due to federal regulations and whatnot for worker safety and health. I suppose specific factories can survive without cleanliness. Thanks :)
anvita99 5 days ago
@Philasaurus I didn't realize a factory could get away with having no cleaning services, due to federal regulations and whatnot for worker safety and health. I suppose certain factories can survive without cleanliness.
Anyway, thanks for your answer :)
anvita99 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Philasaurus I didn't realize a factory could get away without having cleaning services, due to federal regulations and whatnot for worker safety and health. I suppose certain factories can survive without cleanliness.
Anyway, thanks for your answer :)
anvita99 5 days ago
@anvita99 "but how do you measure a janitor's profitability?"
In the video we know the marginal revenue products of the different workers. In real life measuring marginal revenue product is often not very practical. Nevertheless the employer still implicitly weighs expected/estimated revenue product against the cost of wages when deciding whether to employ a person or not. And if he expects them to cost more than they generate, they won't be hired.
bitbutter 2 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Feel free to inbox me, I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
Fuck Edgar if he won't pay people what they are worth. So poor Edgar will be forced to go and screw workers in ANOTHER country if he is not allowed to screw workers HERE??? I repeat, fuck Edgar. As bitbutter says, in comments here, Edgar may find his own people co-operating to compete with him, he certainly won't get any loyalty. This video glorifies wage slavery. Many countries have introduced minimum wage and have NOT suffered for it. Everyone deserves the respect a decent income provides.
MrRouXRenard 6 days ago
@MrRouXRenard Do you understand why we should expect the minimum wage, or any increase in MW level, to harm marginal workers?
bitbutter 6 days ago
A subjective law requiring an employee be paid at least 3/4ths of their productivity might work better.
ChakraKnot 1 week ago
@ChakraKnot "A subjective law requiring an employee be paid at least 3/4ths of their productivity might work better."
Not limiting peaceful trades at all might work even better still.
bitbutter 6 days ago 5
@bitbutter If an employer can exploit its workers it will, that's just how it is. With a certain percentage being required to be paid, it fixes the only problem with minimum wage that you mention in the video. It will encourage workers to work harder because their wage would increase if they find a way to increase their own efficiency. But perhaps you can humor me and tell me how you think we could prevent Americans from receiving Foxconn wages.
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
@ChakraKnot "But perhaps you can humor me and tell me how you think we could prevent Americans from receiving Foxconn wages."
The same way as wages and working conditions improved during and just after the industrial revolution: allowing natural competition between employers. That means removing the myriad artificial barriers to entry currently in place that hamper small firms.
bitbutter 6 days ago
@bitbutter I don't think a percentage would be a barrier, workers should receive a certain percentage of what they make. Doing so in no way prevents a business from being profitable.
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
@ChakraKnot You didn't address my response. Do you understand why your proposal would still trigger marginal firms to relocate overseas or mechanize--giving the same result: harming the most marginal workers?
bitbutter 6 days ago
@bitbutter because it would still be profitable. If they can make a machine that is more efficient with this cap in place they should do so. Importing work will cost them more than the wage limit.
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
@ChakraKnot Apologies, I misunderstood you. The point remains that at any given cap on the ability to profit, some firms will mechanize or relocate. At that point, workers like simon will suffer.
bitbutter 6 days ago
@bitbutter Small business will likely take the place of the business that try to import work. If mechanization can be done that profitably, with the higher skilled labor required to do so, then it should only serve to help the economy. I think this would even increase productivity as an employee who works hard will be required to be given a higher wage. I'm sure you would agree that what I'm proposing is at least a better idea than the current system
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
@bitbutter The reason wages increased so fast was the amazingly large room that America had for expansion. Today, there are already giant corporations for most services, so little room is left.
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
@ChakraKnot Do you understand how competition between employers, for employees, constitutes an upward pressure on wages and improving working conditions?
bitbutter 6 days ago
@ChakraKnot "With a certain percentage being required to be paid, it fixes the only problem with minimum wage that you mention in the video."
This proposal would still trigger marginal firms to relocate overseas or mechanize--giving the same result: harming the most marginal workers.
bitbutter 6 days ago
@bitbutter It would still be profitable here with a %, perhaps moreso than importing their workers. Mechanization is a good thing if it can be that efficient.
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
@ChakraKnot "It would still be profitable here with a %"
Do you know what 'marginal firm' means?
bitbutter 6 days ago
@bitbutter If productivity is low, the pay for the employees would be low. What I was suggesting would never make employers be required to pay more than they gained.
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bitbutter "This proposal would still trigger marginal firms to relocate overseas or mechanize--giving the same result: harming the most marginal workers."
If an employer was required to provide wages of 50% of productivity, would they still do this? What about 25%? A wage cap at some level should not hurt the economy as employers should be providing a certain amount to their workers in the first place.
ChakraKnot 6 days ago
@bitbutter
Thats also very harmful as you mess with supply and demand, but i think it would work a bit better. Let us not aim for lesser evils, but a free-er economy.
BellTollsForThee 5 days ago
Man, that cloud is freaky as hell. Also, this video is accurate, but you have to have a free market for competition to occur. Due to government favors and the shitty economy ( thanks again, government), competition is currently shit, which leads to monopolistic behavior, which is bad for labor. Great video. I bet that cloud gives good blowjobs.
Wisecracka 1 week ago
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
ArmednSafe 1 week ago
I mean honestly... abolishing the minimum wage? That's Bachmann/Gingrich bullshit.
The real solution is to at least tax the fuck out of Edgar. He's rich, he needs to pay his share again.
TheSkunkCat 1 week ago
@TheSkunkCat You're clearly an insane socialist with no sense of economics AKA the reason I despise democracy. You think you can just get a gang of people and rob me and take your arbitrary fair share. That's why guns are so important :)
LeonTheMortgageAgent 1 week ago
@TheSkunkCat Also, if you think an idea is wrong just because you don't like the person who proposed it makes you very foolish indeed. Even a broken clock is right twice a day right?
LeonTheMortgageAgent 1 week ago
@TheSkunkCat Do you understand why the minimum wage, or any increase in the MW level, can be expected to harm the most marginal workers?
bitbutter 1 week ago 8
@TheSkunkCat I take it you put your fingers in your ears and hummed show tunes through the length of this video...
munkyusm 1 week ago 3
I also find it quite interesting that no where does this video ever mention that Simon cannot possibly actually survive off the minimum wage in modern society. That it's a recipe for him getting into bigger and bigger debts.
Honestly my respect for Qualiasoup just diminished to zero. It seems we must be enemies. Because I oppose anyone who'd bring back the horrors of the 1800's with this sort of bullshit.
TheSkunkCat 1 week ago
@TheSkunkCat Bring back the horrors? Do you even know what horrors were being escaped? The productivity increases and rises in living standards increased so much during that period. How about you actually crack open a book instead of regurgitating invalidated socialist talking points.
LeonTheMortgageAgent 1 week ago 3
I have a better idea.
We kill Edgar, who's superflous and who's wealth gives him disproportionate power which he WILL abuse to suit his own ends. And we bring democracy to labour as well.
Edgar is both unnecessary as a component, and actively harmful. Let the workers run the factory, and spend some of the money on offering free education instead for the Simons.
TheSkunkCat 1 week ago
@TheSkunkCat "Edgar is both unnecessary as a component"
Edgar personally bore the risk of creating the factory and waiting many years before his investment costs were recouped. The workers could band together and invest in their own factory, taking a similar risk. The fact that they don't, and work for Edgar instead demonstrates that they value what he offers them, that they prefer not to (or cannot) take that risk themselves. From their perspective at least Edgar is certainly not superfluous.
bitbutter 1 week ago 7
@TheSkunkCat Nice to see your true self come out. STOP DOING THINGS I DON'T LIKE OR I WILL KILL YOU!
Some people actually have respect for human life. They are called libertarians.
NeonShadowsx 1 week ago 4
@TheSkunkCat You don't need to kill Edgar. The factory workers can all simply form a cooperative, where they each own a share of the business. That way, they will collectively have power to fire the people like Edgar, who really aren't needed, and sub contract out labour at better rates for the jobs that are needed. Since all of the workers get paid a proportion of the total profit, it's in their business to only work with productive people, so productivity also increases.
But that's socialism!
57worldwide 1 week ago
@TheSkunkCat You just suggested murdering someone because they peacefully interacted with society...you're fucking evil, dude.
munkyusm 1 week ago 4
Thank you, Cloud. :]
DutchOldenburg 1 week ago
Edgar could also pay Vikki and Bob less and take less for his share, which would effectively redistribute everyone's income at the factory. I think that outcome is far more probable, but still not a good thing. The government needs to leave business's alone and let them compete without regulative distortion.
fulltimesav 1 week ago
And lastly there is assumption that minimal wage woudl have to apply even to inexperience workers wich is not true.Shoudl it be only damaging to fresh labour force an alternative form
of contract for them can be introced.One that bears less restriction and allows them to gain experience.
Kharmazov 1 week ago
Furthermore the minimal wage is not set in stone and it is uassaly adjusted either periodicly
or when the need arises.Also minimal wage is caculet and based upon livig expenditures and requirements.So in essence if Simon earns enough to support himself the minimal wage shoudl not exeed his current salary,unless ofcourse he's a hobo livig under a bridge and feeding from the trash can.
Kharmazov 1 week ago
Utter libertarian bullshit.Mimimum wage have been introduced because average man was earning
barely enough to live by.Even China have introduced it some time ago.As always the real issue is not wenever minimal wage gives positive or negative effects.It's about goverment regulation wich to libertarians transale to evil incarnate,regardles if it's beneficial or not.
It's the very same principle that drove the communism to it's shalow grave.
Kharmazov 1 week ago
@Kharmazov The video explains why MW can be expected to hurt marginal workers. If you believe it's incorrect it would be helpful for others if you explain exactly where you think it goes wrong.
bitbutter 1 week ago 2
@bitbutter
I have already done so in three of my previous posts.
Kharmazov 1 week ago
I suggest passing a second law prohibiting employers from firing those who end up in this situation.
Such a law would be a threat to absolutely no company at all, only to the paycheck of those who's paycheck is 10 times bigger then the majority of those who work at that company, and that is why they will squeal like pigs.
founoe 2 weeks ago
@founoe How will you enforce this law? What if these people do less work when they realize they can't be fired? What if others take extra min wage jobs for the income, but don't actually do any work while on shift, since they know they can't get fired? What if the company has financial woes and needs to downsize to survive?
Altimadark 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"What if these people do less work when they realize they can't be fired?"
Don't read with such naivety. I was not saying that people who do not do what they are hired to do should not be fired.
"What if the company has financial woes and needs to downsize to survive?"
When the CEOs have ducked their pays to the level of everyone else, they can justify firing people.
founoe 1 week ago
@founoe "I suggest passing a second law prohibiting employers from firing those who end up in this situation."
Terrible idea. See Altimadark's comment. Also: consider how this would affect applicants like simon who had not yet found work--the MW already hurts his chances of finding work enormously, if employers knew they couldn't legally fire him after employing him, that would make matters even worse.
bitbutter 1 week ago 2
@bitbutter
"Also: consider how this would affect applicants like simon who had not yet found work"
Yeah...
You know what we should do? Prohibit private people from running companies altogether, and let the state manage all the business while the profits go to the people, instead of some random douchebag who will use the money to promote politicians that will strip the proletariat of their rights in favor of the bourgeois.
founoe 1 week ago
@founoe Great, you've just killed entrepreneurship and innovation because the people who would work towards new productive businesses and inventions don't wish to work for nothing. Meanwhile, greed still exists, which you will see as the greedy start to take over government, because government clearly has all the power -- not people, as you seem to think.
Altimadark 1 week ago
@Altimadark
"you've just killed entrepreneurship and innovation"
That socialism would cripple innovation is a myth.
"because government clearly has all the power"
No, that would be the exact opposite of what socialism strives for. Well, depending on how you put it. The people should be the government, and the power should lie with the people, so...
founoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
Altimadark 1 week ago
@founoe Didn't you just say "let the state manage all the business?" Clearly that's an example of big government power.
Further, it's impossible for the government to be the people. Government is force.
Altimadark 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"Didn't you just say "let the state manage all the business?""
Yes, but I've also said that the people is the state, or should be at least.
"Clearly that's an example of big government power."
Uh-huh.
"Further, it's impossible for the government to be the people."
I disagree.
"Government is force."
Government is you.
founoe 1 week ago
@founoe So how is the government "me" when it taxes me to fund wars or entitlement programs I don't agree with?
Altimadark 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"So how is the government "me" when it taxes me to fund wars or entitlement programs I don't agree with?"
Well then, you'll have to make a greater effort to replace that government then, will you not?
How is government force?
founoe 1 week ago
@founoe Refuse to pay taxes until the government stop spending tax dollars on things you disagree with. Do you think government will suddenly change its ways? No, more likely they'll send IRS agents, then cops. Keep in mind, you haven't actually hurt anybody. If you try to defend yourself at this point, the government will start sending armed soldiers after you. Government is not "you" or "me" or "the people." Government is force.
Altimadark 1 week ago
@Altimadark
"Refuse to pay taxes until the government stop spending tax dollars on things you disagree with."
I suppose. Maybe you could incite a lot of people to join you and hope that the government takes your protest seriously. Or you could avoid the whole illegal business and spread your political opinion though some form of media. If your opinion makes a lot of sense and you portray it well enough, then maybe you can gather enough people to make a cause.
Become the government.
founoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
Altimadark 1 week ago
@founoe But what if most people disagree with you? What if most people decide you MUST pay, regardless of what you think? What if more people who think you should pay "become the government" than those that don't?
Conversely, let's say you succeed in becoming the govt. What about everybody else? What if a good percentage (not necessarily a majority, but enough that you can't ignore or jail them) decide they don't like the way you govern?
How are they government at the same time you are?
Altimadark 1 week ago
@Altimadark
"What if most people decide you MUST pay, regardless of what you think?"
You're going to have to make those sacrifices to live in a society with other people, and technology.
I've been thinking about the government is force thing, and you're right. In your country the government is not it's people. Capitalism has moved the power from the people to the rich elite. And you guys seriously need to vote for some socialists if you want to take the power back from said group.
founoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
Altimadark 1 week ago
@founoe Why should I have to sacrifice the fruits of my labor to support government programs I disagree with just to live in a society?
If I disagree with the socialist system the majority votes in, what stops the now-socialist government form using force if I refuse to pay my taxes?
Altimadark 1 week ago
@founoe "In your country the government is not it's people."
Government is never 'the people'. Even at it's idealistic mythical best it's simply _a majority_. And in reality (thanks in part to the problem of rational ignorance within representative democracy) it's a ruling minority.
"Capitalism has moved the power from the people to the rich elite."
Not so. The state does that _for_ the rich/politically connected, as we should expect it always will.
bitbutter 1 week ago 2
@bitbutter
"Government is never 'the people'."
There will never be a decent society until this becomes reality.
And I think you have a very skewed view of what government might be. Parliamentary government for example is probably a much better form of government than a republic one. And who's to say that the best form of government has even been conceived of yet?
"Not so"
Yeah, that politicians receive millions to support further tax cuts for the already rich definitely didn't help
founoe 1 week ago
@founoe If you want the government to be "the people," you need to shrink government power, not grow it. The closest you could ever get to the government being the people is if there is no government at all, at which point people would simply govern themselves.
Altimadark 1 week ago
@Altimadark
"you need to shrink government power, not grow it"
No, that would leave the proletariat defenseless against the bourgeois. A government is needed to keep the upper class' influence and power suppressed, else they would systematically turn the working class into slave workers. Like America has done.
I know you view government as something disembodied to the people, and that is true. But you must understand that I am talking about what a government should be, not what it is
founoe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@founoe "I am talking about what a government should be, not what it is"
This is the root of your problem. Reality does not conform itself to your demands, nor anybody else's.
In reality, big government does not suppress the upper class, it bolsters them. In reality, big government does not protect the people's rights, it suppresses them. We see this in the USA, just as we see it in Russia, just as we see it throughout history.
Altimadark 1 week ago
@founoe "A government is needed to keep the upper class' influence and power suppressed, else they would systematically turn the working class into slave workers. Like America has done"
Clue to where you're going wrong: America has a government.
bitbutter 1 week ago 3
@bitbutter
"America has a government."
Controlled by the rich.
"Why do you think what a government _should_ be is relevant here?"
Because if everyone thought as you did, we'd never get anything better than what we already have.
"So called 'Tax cuts' for the rich are a red herring."
Really? I find them most relevant. Ever since the introduction of "trickle down" economics, "job creators" should have had more freedom to create jobs, and yet the exact opposite has happened.
founoe 1 week ago
@founoe "Ever since the introduction of "trickle down" economics, "job creators" should have had more freedom to create jobs, and yet the exact opposite has happened."
Despite local decreases, the clear trend is that the size of the federal register is increasing. The 'regulatory burden' in the US has never been as high as it has been in recent years. (google: "ANOTHER REGULATORY MILESTONE").
bitbutter 1 week ago
@bitbutter
"The 'regulatory burden' in the US has never been as high as it has been in recent years"
And yet the wealthiest 99.99% have had their pay increased by 400% in the last 30 years, while the poorest 90% have only gotten a 1% increase. Compared to the 30 years before Regan when the richest had an 80% pay increase while the poorest had 75%.
I don't think regulatory burden actually is much of a burden. I think it's time for America to hang their rich for what they have done.
founoe 1 week ago
@founoe "And yet the wealthiest 99.99%"
I'm assuming you mean 0.01%. Could it be that this tiny minority are the beneficiaries of government interference in markets on their behalf? I'd be very surprised if they weren't.
bitbutter 1 week ago
@founoe "I don't think regulatory burden actually is much of a burden"
Source: google "Over-regulated America":
"A study for the Small Business Administration, a government body, found that regulations in general add $10,585 in costs per employee."
I hope you agree that's a very significant burden.
bitbutter 1 week ago
@bitbutter
"I hope you agree that's a very significant burden"
10,6 dollars? 10,6 dollars what? A day? A week? A month? A year? A single time payment? And where do you suppose this money goes to, a black hole?
"I believe in the possibility of improvement--a stateless society"
Yeah? Well, personally I'm happy that we left the stone age.
"0.01%. Could it be that this tiny minority..."
Administrative pay has increased over all, just not as much, while worker pay has remained stagnant.
founoe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@founoe "Administrative pay has increased over all, just not as much, while worker pay has remained stagnant."
Given this, why do you think it's a good idea to give more power to government, the biggest administrative body around?
Altimadark 1 week ago
@founoe "10,6 dollars? "
No. 10,585 dollars. More than ten thousand, per employee, annually. If that's not a significant burden, what _would_ be a significant burden in your view?
"Well, personally I'm happy that we left the stone age."
Me too. It's a shame that states are working hard to return us to it.
"while worker pay has remained stagnant."
No it hasn't. Google "The Real "Truth About the Economy:" Have Wages Stagnated?" for details.
bitbutter 6 days ago
@bitbutter
"what _would_ be a significant burden in your view?"
Something that is not an arbitrary number. How big of a portion is this of their capital? How high has this digit been in the past? For all I know it could be lower than usual right now.
"Me too. It's a shame that states are working hard to return us to it."
Working together got us out of the stone age. And if we are to advance further we're going to have to keep working together. And to do that we need governments.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe "For all I know it could be lower than usual right now."
Whether or not it's higher or lower than usual doesn't 10,585 dollars per employee per year strike you as a 'significant burden' anyway?
"And to do that we need governments."
Strange claim. Why do you believe that we need governments in order to work together?
bitbutter 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bitbutter
"doesn't 10,585 dollars per employee per year strike you as a 'significant burden' anyway?"
Why do you think that this is a lot?
"Why do you believe that we need governments in order to work together?"
My immediate response would be: Because I'm not completely retarded.
My argument would be that in order to advance as a society, humans have to work together. Even free market is a form of working together. And to do that we need laws, roads, health care, etc. - government.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe "And to do that we need laws, roads, health care, etc. - government."
You don't need government for roads and health care. Case in point, Americans used to be able pay for a year of health coverage for a single day's wages. When the government decided to intervene, the cost of health care coverage grew considerably.
And you don't need laws to force people to work together. They can do it on their own. Laws should exist only to deter coercive action, not to be coercive itself.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@Altimadark
"don't need government for roads and health care."
Yes, we do. Or else the situation will be like in America where corporations can make a profit from peoples illness, which means the worst thing that can happen is that people get healthy. And they will deny people their lives simply for costing too much.
"laws to force people to work together."
Who said anything about force? Is that what you think government is, something that just forces you here and there? Ridiculous.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe As I just said, the situation with health care in America is *because* of government intrusion.
Government can force you to do business with big corporations when its regulations put newer or smaller competitors out of business. Government can force you into a prison cell or a coffin if you don't pay your taxes. Government is force.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@Altimadark
"As I just said, the situation with health care in America is *because* of government intrusion"
No, your problem is that corporations want to earn money from people being ill. And this problem won't be solved until your health care system is completely in the hands of the government.
"Government is force"
And your reaction is to completely dispose of it?
If you sprain your ankle and can't walk on it, you don't cut your foot of because it's not working, you try to fix it
founoe 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@founoe "No, your problem is that corporations want to earn money from people being ill."
The reason why it's in the hands of those corporations is because of government. Thus, I don't trust them to handle it completely.
"'Government is force'
And your reaction is to completely dispose of it?"
I already said government should be used to deter coercive action, not initiate it. I guess you're not reading everything like you tell other people to do.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@founoe That number also shows us how much more an employee has to produce in order to earn their wages. i.e, a min wage worker must produce at least $12-13/hr in order to earn the $7.5 the minimum wage, assuming 40hr/wk, 50wk/yr. The higher the regulations, the more the worker has to produce to stay on the job.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@founoe Voluntary exchange is what took us from the stone age to where we are today. No government coerced people to invent the wheel, the car, the light bulb, the telephone, the computer, the internet, etc, and it's private enterprise -- people seeking profit -- that made these things available to the common man today.
Altimadark 6 days ago 2
@Altimadark
"No government coerced people to invent the wheel..."
You're using some very situational evidence there. You'd have to be pretty stupid if you don't think that governments were not funding *many* of our greatest discoveries/inventions.
Also, in order for free exchange to work, we depend on laws to protect producers and consumers alike. We need to have a governing body, laws, rules, if any form of serious interaction is to occur.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe "governments were...funding *many* of our greatest discoveries/inventions."
If they're really that great, then you need to be more specific and name them.
Altimadark 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"If they're really that great, then you need to be more specific and name them."
"Them"? They are countless.
However, the most advanced piece of scientific equipment ever built by humans, namely the Large Hadron Collider, is government funded.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe That you won't name any besides the LHC tells me that there aren't any to name.
I think the LHC is a very bold project, and I appreciate that it's being far more honest about its doings than any of the governments funding them. That said, it's not a new invention or discovery; it's a particle accelerator, simply scaled up. Also, I don't think government funding was absolutely necessary; if they asked for charitable donations, they'd have about the same amount of funding.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@Altimadark
"That you won't name any besides the LHC tells me that there aren't any to name."
I said there are countless of government funded projects. I just thought it was a good example that the most cutting edge science is one of them. Personally, I don't think there is any monetary gain to the LHC, which means the chances of seeing one being built by free enterprise is close to zero.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe I just explained a way for free enterprise to provide funding, and I didn't even need to include a profit motive.
Altimadark 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"I just explained a way for free enterprise to provide funding"
Right: "Ask for funding"? The waterproof super method based on free enterprise that never fails.
You've got to be kidding me.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe I said seek donations. If the LHC is really as great project as you claim, (for the record, I think it *is*) then you shouldn't have a problem finding more than enough people willing to give you money for it, rather than force everybody to pay for it via taxation.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@Altimadark
"If the LHC is really as great project as you claim"
I never claimed anything like that.
"then you shouldn't have a problem"
You'll pretty much say whatever crazy shit you have to rather than admit we need governments for certain things, don't you?
"rather than force everybody to pay for it via taxation"
You see, the problem is that people are too dumb to know their own good. We need experts to tell us what we need.
founoe 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@founoe If you don't even consider to be it a great project; how is it you can claim it's an effective use of taxpayer money?
"...the problem is that people are too dumb to know their own good. We need experts to tell us what we need."
But you said that the government is supposed to be *the people;* how can *the people* be the government when they're too dumb to know their own good? I think you're just saying whatever you have to, rather than admit we don't need govt for most things.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@founoe "I said there are countless of government funded projects."
No, you said there are countless great inventions and/or discoveries which were funded by government.
I already provided a handful of the countless inventions/discoveries that were produced without government coercion; the least you could do is provide a similar list, instead of claiming they're simply "countless."
Altimadark 6 days ago
@Altimadark
"No, you said there are countless great inventions and/or discoveries which were funded by government."
Aren't those projects?
"the least you could do is provide a similar list"
Google: list of government funded inventions
or whatever.
"instead of claiming they're simply "countless.""
You'd have to be pretty stupid to not think they're countless. I don't even understand why you want a list.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe"Aren't those projects?"
A project is not an invention or discovery in and of itself. Surely you don't think government housing projects count as inventions or discoveries.
"Google: list of government funded inventions"
You made the claim; *you* Google it and list the examples you find.
"I don't even understand why you want a list."
Your lack of examples shows me your claim has no basis behind it, that it's mere speculation.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@Altimadark
"A project is not an invention or discovery in and of itself."
Yes they are. Building the LHC was a project. Inventing the light bulb was a project. Discovering the cure for polio was a project.
"You made the claim; *you* Google it"
Tell that to your friend bitbutter. Half his comments would be invalid if he wasn't allowed to reference google.
Besides, if you have any interest in knowing what is *true*, you owe it to yourself to do the research.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe You have it backwards. An invention/discovery may be a project, but a project isn't necessarily an invention/discovery. Saying a project is an invention is like saying all red things are apples.
No government told Edison to invent the lightbulb, or Jonas Salk to develop a vaccine.
I've already checked both your and bitbutter's googles. bb is providing actual titles; you only have google searches.
You claim to be interested in "truth," yet you reject history quite a bit. Funny.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@Altimadark
"You have it backwards."
No. You have it up your ass. Here is the definition of "Project": something that is contemplated, devised, or planned; plan; scheme.
"An invention/discovery may be a project, but a project isn't necessarily an invention/discovery"
All that matters is that inventions/discoveries are projects.
"No government told Edison to invent the lightbulb"
So what? It was still a project.
founoe 5 days ago
@founoe As I recall, the point is that projects (and by extension, government projects) are not necessarily inventions or discoveries. The fact that you have yet to cite any examples of government inventions or projects tells me that you have no examples, and thus there are none.
Altimadark 5 days ago
@Altimadark
"The fact that you have yet to cite any examples"
LHC wasn't an example?
Nearly 30% of all science conducted in America is funded by it's government.
That might be some useful information. If I named a few things like the internet, teflon or told you to look up National Science Foundation. What would you do with that information? Doesn't mean anything.
founoe 5 days ago
@founoe I've already explained how the LHC is neither an invention nor a discovery.
The technology that led to the internet was already well in development before the DoD got involved
Teflon was invented by Roy Plunkett of Kinetic Chemicals. He invented it by accident, so it wasn't even a project.
The NSF isn't that bad, mostly because it keeps politics out, despite being a government organization -- but that begs the question, why does it even need government in the first place?
Altimadark 5 days ago
@Altimadark
"I've already explained how the LHC is neither an invention nor a discovery."
I don't think you have, but whatever. It's a tool for making discoveries, big difference.
"Teflon was invented by Roy Plunkett"
Sorry, common misconception.
"why does it even need government in the first place"
Because science for the sake of knowledge gets very little funding from private enterprise. Even thought it's immediate pay off is low, this science often inspire new inventions.
founoe 5 days ago
@founoe The LHC is not a new invention; it's just a very large cyclotron. If you count new versions of the same thing to be "inventions," then the auto industry is beating the government easily.
"science for the sake of knowledge gets very little funding from private enterprise."
How did you measure how much funding basic research needs?
Altimadark 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"The LHC is not a new invention"
Like I said, it's a tool for making new discoveries. I don't think it makes a big difference weather it is a new invention or not. It's a science project, the most advanced in the world, and it's funded by governments.
"How did you measure how much funding basic research needs?"
I didn't.
founoe 5 days ago
@founoe If you haven't measured how much funding basic research needs, how can you claim it doesn't get enough from the private sector?
Altimadark 5 days ago
@Altimadark
Why are you assuming that is the only method of knowing this?
How do I know? Because it simply does not happen. Private enterprise does not, or very rarely, invest in something that is unlikely to yield a direct benefit. That is why we need government to do those investments for us, to open up new fields that can yield a direct benefit.
founoe 5 days ago
@founoe "Private enterprise does not, or very rarely, invest in something that is unlikely to yield a direct benefit."
SRI International, RAND Corporation, HMMI, Monell Chemical Research Center, Bitterroot Basic Research, and Guidestar are all private firms engaged in basic research. Took me 5 minutes to look them up.
So I ask, how can you claim the private sector doesn't engage in enough basic research such that we need government to get involved?
Altimadark 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"Took me 5 minutes to look them up."
That explains why the information is so useless.
"So I ask, how can you claim the private sector doesn't engage in enough basic research such that we need government to get involved?"
I don't know if you noticed, but all you did was to name a few organizations that handles basic research. But this says nothing. Government funded basic research is vastly bigger.
founoe 5 days ago
Comment removed
Altimadark 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@founoe "But this says nothing."
It says that the private sector engages in basic research on its own, contrary to your claim:
"Private enterprise does not, or very rarely, invest in something that is unlikely to yield a direct benefit. That is why we need government to do those investments for us,"
You claimed we need government to engage in basic research because the private sector does not, a reason I just disproved. Why do we need government involved in basic research at all?
Altimadark 5 days ago
@Altimadark
""Private enterprise does not, or very rarely"
Notice: very rarely.
What do you have there, 7 businesses that do basic research? How many businesses do not conduct basic research? Well, it's a lot.
"Why do we need government involved in basic research at all?"
Private business is much less likely than government to fund basic research. If government weren't there to fill in the holes, science would advance at a much slower rate.
founoe 4 days ago
@founoe "How many businesses do not conduct basic research? Well, it's a lot."
So? There are a lot of businesses that *don't* produce energy, provide insurance, produce food, design computers, etc... We don't have a shortage of these things just because most firms don't work on them, and the same goes for basic research.
"If government weren't there to fill in the holes, science would advance at a much slower rate."
What do you base your speculation on?
Altimadark 4 days ago
@Altimadark
"We don't have a shortage of these things just because most firms don't work on them"
That's not even the same thing!
Science isn't a consumable product. Who ever goes: "Lads, we've produced 'enough' science for this year! Now we can sit back and wait for the next science season!"
"What do you base your speculation on?"
The fact that nearly no basic science is being made by private business because it yields very low profit.
founoe 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@founoe "Science isn't a consumable product."
So? The same claim applies; just because not every firm engages in basic research, doesn't mean we aren't conducting enough of it.
"The fact that nearly no basic science is being made by private business"
First, there are a number of non-profit firms which *do* conduct basic research, as I've already proven.
Second, you didn't answer the real question: How do you know science would advance at a slower rate if government didn't get involved?
Altimadark 4 days ago
@founoe "The fact that nearly no basic science is being made by private business because it yields very low profit."
You're mistaken. Google "End Government Science Funding" for the details.
bitbutter 3 days ago
@bitbutter
"You're mistaken. Google "End Government Science Funding" for the details."
If you are talking about the article by Terence Kealey, he says nothing to refute this fact.
founoe 3 days ago
@founoe Mr. Kealey does refute your claim that government intervention leads to more basic research.
Altimadark 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"your claim that government intervention leads to more basic research"
I do not claim this.
My claim is that out of all basic science being made, government funds far more of it than private business do.
Kealey writes, among other things, that businesses who conduct basic science grows in productivity - investing in basic science is good for business, in other words.
But none of what he writes still refute my claim.
founoe 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@founoe "'your claim that government intervention leads to more basic research'
I do not claim this.
My claim is that out of all basic science being made, government funds far more of it than private business do."
Govt funding comes from taxes, which is indeed a form of govt intervention.
Altimadark 2 days ago
@founoe "The fact that nearly no basic science is being made by private business"
Can you point to any records of basic science funding sources that corroborate your claim that 'nearly no basic science is being made by private business'?
bitbutter 2 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@bitbutter
"Can you point to any records of basic science funding sources that corroborate your claim that 'nearly no basic science is being made by private business'?"
Yes.
Remember that you told me to google "End Government Science Funding"?
Google it yourself and look at the "who pays for science" article from berkeley, or even the wikipedia article "Funding of science", which both can be seen just under Kealey's article.
founoe 2 days ago
@founoe Berkley article points out funding may introduce bias. You can already see this from government-sponsored research, when they have to do research on what is politically expedient rather than what interests the researcher.
The Wiki article states that the private sector executes over 70% of research, while government only executes about 12.2% No statistics are given to distinguish basic research from applied research; the only thing I could find was a statement without citation.
Altimadark 2 days ago 2
@Altimadark
"Berkley article points out funding may introduce bias..."
Yeah, bias in PRIVATE FUNDING!
"Drug research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is more likely to end up favoring the drug under consideration than studies sponsored by government"
What you just said about researchers being swayed by outside pressure is true, only it's PRIVATE BUSINESS that does that, NOT the government.
founoe 2 days ago
@founoe I just told you how government funding introduces its own bias, but if you want an account of this, check out Tibor R. Machan's article, "Bias in Government Science."
Altimadark 2 days ago
@Altimadark
"I just told you how government funding introduces its own bias"
You said: "they have to do research on what is politically expedient rather than what interests the researcher."
Which, firstly, is a prime example of business science, because it is based on profit and not 'what interests the researcher'.
And secondly, neither of the Berkeley or Machan articles speaks about this.
founoe 2 days ago
@founoe (Machan) "politicians funnel money to the universities of their region instead of institutions where the research might be done most competently."
So I see you didn't even read the article.
"prime example of business science"
What about the non-profit organizations which devote their organizations exclusively to basic science? That's part of the private sector, too.
Altimadark 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"you didn't even read the article"
I did. But: "they have to do research on what is politically expedient rather than what interests the researcher."
Has absolutely nothing to do with: "politicians funnel money to the universities of their region instead of institutions where the research might be done most competently."
And speaking of not reading the articles, how biased are you when the Berkley article brings up company bias, which you ignore, and go on about government bias?
founoe 1 day ago
@founoe "how biased are you when the Berkley article brings up company bias, which you ignore, and go on about government bias?"
I never ignored nor denied "company bias." You, on the other hand, have ignored non-profit research organizations (who likely do of the most basic research done by the private sector) and denied bias stemming from government funding.
Altimadark 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"I never ignored nor denied "company bias.""
Yes you did. You said: "Berkley article points out funding may introduce bias. You can already see this from government-sponsored research"
When in fact, the Berkley article pointed out company bias. And I gotta wonder what the hell the point of this discussion is if you're going to ignore all the facts that prove you wrong and switch the subject. Which is also the reason I have yet not addressed any of Machan's points.
founoe 1 day ago
@founoe Read it again. I wasn't quoting Berkley, nor did I claim they were talking about government bias. I said they brought up funding bias, and I said that this included government funding.
"if you're going to ignore all the facts that prove you wrong"
Which facts? That you ignore nonprofits, ignore govt bias, ignore history in favor of wishful thinking, think that the private sector only cares about profit, or think that people are stupid, but should also be the govt?
Altimadark 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"I wasn't quoting Berkley"
I didn't say you were.
"nor did I claim they were talking about government bias."
That's right, you started talking about government bias. That was right after you ignored company bias that the Berkley article pointed out, then you switched the subject to government bias, and THEN you accuse ME of ignoring the facts.
Sir, you need to explain company bias before you may move on to other points.
founoe 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@founoe "you accuse ME of ignoring the facts."
But you are ignoring the facts; you continue to say the private sector won't fund basic research because of a lack of a profit motive, despite the facts that not only does the private sector have firms focus solely on basic research, but also that the profit motive isn't the only motive the private sector has.
"you need to explain company bias"
Why? I haven't defended company bias. You, on the other hand, are defending government bias.
Altimadark 1 day ago
@founoe "if we are to advance further we're going to have to keep working together. And to do that we need governments."
This counterpoint occurred to me: If you want people to work together, why would you point to government as the solution? The US government, and the two-party system in particular, has been pitting the populace against itself almost as long as the country has existed.
Altimadark 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Altimadark
"If you want people to work together, why would you point to government as the solution?"
Because people who live in close proximity to each other and interact with each other have to have reinforced laws against murder and stealing for example. And that is where people representing larger groups of people in order to determine such laws come from.
"The US government, and the two-party system in particular..."
Yes, that government is a particularly stupid one.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe Most people choose not to steal and murder because it's morally reprehensible, not because the law says it's wrong. Now, there are people who will do it anyway, and it's in these situations where police and the like are good and necessary things, but I cannot believe that it's the law, and only the law, which keeps you from killing your friends and coworkers at the drop of a hat.
Altimadark 6 days ago
@Altimadark
"Now, there are people who will do it anyway"
What?! Are you even thinking before you type these comments?
Listen to yourself, you're saying that people murder each other despite the laws against it, and this would, according to you, mean that all the effort to stop people from committing murder is completely pointless.
Yeah right, let's remove the laws and the police. I'm SURE the murder rates will stay approximately THE SAME.
founoe 6 days ago
@founoe Are you even reading the comments before you reply to them? You implied people needed law to tell them theft and murder are wrong; I said most people don't need law to tell them that.
But let's go with your scenario. Without laws, people would naturally seek protection; they'd buy guns, form militias, etc. A good example of this would be what most call the Old West. There was actually less crime per capita back then than there is today, when there were *fewer* gun restrictions.
Altimadark 6 days ago
founoe 6 days ago