|
Muscle Tracer posted:one-step logic is not the specialty of this thread. 500-step logic with the interceding 498 steps excised, though? totally fine. It's actually infinite step logic.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Nolanar posted:It's definitely something I've noticed a lot with them, but usually it's in the opposite order: you lead with the soft formulation to get people on your side, then switch to the hard formulation to "prove" things from it. You can see it in other areas where people want to expand the definition of their ideology to make it seem popular, then narrow it to make their personal faction the only one that really counts. I'm sure there's a name for it, but I'm not sure what it is. Motte-and-bailey vs. weak man http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I have an infinite demand for logical steps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:"Demand is infinite" does not follow from "demand exceeds supply". It's also not true in most markets, including labor. List those markets and explain why labor is one of them. And before you list a company like Apple, rember that outsourcing thousands of low skill jobs overseas indicates they do want more labor than they are currently employing locally. Expensive capital demonstrates the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
You first have to prove the demand exceeds supply. Hiring several more low skill jobs overseas does not prove that the demand for labor is exceeding supply. Only that it is was not being met at the time. Basically defend your original premise that if everyone was free you would hire everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:List those markets and explain why labor is one of them. No, it suggests that they want cheaper labor. You are brain dead. They don't want to hire more people than it takes to make their poo poo, they just want to pay those people as little as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:List those markets and explain why labor is one of them. literally all markets. as evidence: unemployment exists, unions exist, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:Motte-and-bailey vs. weak man That guy is definitely talking about the same thing (though I'd argue that the Weak Man is just a Straw Man that happens to be advocated by a real person). I did some digging and the technical name is just "equivocation." Which can get confusing due to that word having other meanings, ironically. asdf32 posted:List those markets and explain why labor is one of them. Jesus Christ you're dense. Before you try to further this argument, rember that your watermelon-fucker status is still undetermined. edit: Do you even have a point to what you're arguing? Please, just give us your central thesis in one post, so we can all stay on point. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:edit: Do you even have a point to what you're arguing? Please, just give us your central thesis in one post, so we can all stay on point. you obviously haven't been following the discussion closely enough
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:You first have to prove the demand exceeds supply. One indicator: the total number of jobs outsourced exceeds current unemployment. Imagine if we extrapolated to "free".
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:One indicator: the total number of jobs outsourced exceeds current unemployment. Imagine if we extrapolated to "free". Employees cost money beyond what you pay them directly for employment. Unless those employees literally paid you to work for you, nobody would hire more workers than they needed to run their company. I'm starting to think that you're just trolling at this point but so far you've proven to be extremely stupid, so really it's a toss up for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:One indicator: the total number of jobs outsourced exceeds current unemployment. Imagine if we extrapolated to "free". Sounds like you are confusing globalization and outsourcing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:One indicator: the total number of jobs outsourced exceeds current unemployment. Imagine if we extrapolated to "free". unemployment existing at all is literally the definition of labor supply exceeding labor demand. hopefully we can all be done arguing about the definition of "demand" now, since we've only posted the definition maybe a couple dozen times over the course of this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:One indicator: the total number of jobs outsourced exceeds current unemployment. Imagine if we extrapolated to "free". There would be diminishing returns at some point, so even if they didn't cost any salary productivity would plummet. Though once again, you would have to prove that the jobs they are hired for, are jobs which are unnecessary but price makes them willing to front it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
is asdf a colossal idiot? one indicator: his posts are bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Employees cost money beyond what you pay them directly for employment. Unless those employees literally paid you to work for you, nobody would hire more workers than they needed to run their company. Buddy, the number of workers "needed to run their company" isn't a fixed number ordained from on high. It's completely determined by capital/labor trade-offs based on price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Buddy, the number of workers "needed to run their company" isn't a fixed number ordained from on high. It's completely determined by capital/labor trade-offs based on price. not a fixed number, a number like "infinite"? determined by a trade off based on price, e.g. "not infinite, functionally infinite, almost infinite, or other flavor of infinite"? holy poo poo wow, whoa, amazing, it's almost as though everyone except you was already abundantly and professedly aware of this fact. welcome to agreeing with us
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Buddy, the number of workers "needed to run their company" isn't a fixed number ordained from on high. It's completely determined by capital/labor trade-offs based on price. Yes, and that trade off results in a bounded number even as the salary of any given employee approaches zero.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
How many people does it take to make one taco? An infinite amount paid zero dollars -- Deep Thoughts by asdf32
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Literally no one (besides you I guess) is using a fixed number so what the gently caress are you on about ASDF? Unless you are finally admiting you were wrong, then good on ya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yes, and that trade off results in a bounded number even as the salary of any given employee approaches zero. Yep and the one thing you got right earlier was the point that costs will never be zero. Which is how we know that desire for workers will never be met by any real life market conditions. IE "demand" will exceed supply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yep and the one thing you got right earlier was the point that costs will never be zero. Which is how we know that desire for workers will never be met by any real life market conditions. IE "demand" will exceed supply. That's not what that means you loving lunatic. No matter how many times you repeat it. The words you are using have specific meaning in this context and you're trying to say they mean something else. Saying that a business would theoretically hire infinite workers if it came at literally no cost to them so therefore demand is infinite is stupid, wrong and pointless. I'm going to go with starting as retarded, and now just doubling down because you think it's funny for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Lemming posted:you think it's funny for some reason. seriously though is that a surprise to anyone at this point i'm almost coming around at this point
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Lemming posted:That's not what that means you loving lunatic. No matter how many times you repeat it. The words you are using have specific meaning in this context and you're trying to say they mean something else. Saying that a business would theoretically hire infinite workers if it came at literally no cost to them so therefore demand is infinite is stupid, wrong and pointless. Not wrong, not as stupid as when people are saying "businesses don't want to hire more workers" and not pointless when they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Free jrode
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Demand being infinite under any circumstances is a rather bold claim, and requires proof that you are not able to provide. You might make a case if you start with porn though 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Apple only has as much demand for labour that is required to satisfy demand for its products, which too is not infinite. No more, no less. It could build a dozen more iphone factories starting tomorrow but it would make no economic sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:not as stupid as when people are saying "businesses don't want to hire more workers" no one is saying this. people have said "businesses don't want to hire more workers than they need" do you understand the difference? I don't think you do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Free jrode
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:do you understand the difference? Rearrange the words, change their definitions, and squint real hard... you will see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
If an unstoppable supply meets an immovable demand does it make a sound?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:One indicator: the total number of jobs outsourced exceeds current unemployment. Imagine if we extrapolated to "free". Imagine if we extrapolated wages out to "infinite". Businesses would hire no one, supply exceeds demand! Hmm, maybe this snowflake definition of supply and demand is contradictory and stupid. Anyway, if the price of something (say food) drops to near zero, it isn't given away for free. It is dumped to save on the transportation costs of bringing it to a market where it won't sell for enough to recoup it. And if poors come out to get the food that's been dumped, they are kept away by armed guards while the food is destroyed to ensure that people who have money (and represent actual economic demand) buy it at a higher price rather than coming to get it for free too. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Not wrong, not as stupid as when people are saying "businesses don't want to hire more workers" and not pointless when they are. No one has said this, they said no one will hire unnecessary workers which seems to be your point, that if the cost is zero you will hire people just to mill about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Anyway, this whole mess still doesn't even touch the point I made about the monopsony power of employers. If I own a gas station, I can't raise my prices to $3.00 to make money because the gas station next door is perfectly happy to sell twice as much gas for $2.00 and he will take all my business. The fact that we would both be happier to sell gas at $100 an hour if people were willing to buy it isn't relevant. If I own a store, I can lower my wages to $7 an hour to save money because the place next door paying $8 is not willing to hire all my workers for $8 too and have twice the labor he was buying yesterday. Whether he might be willing to hire those people if they agreed to work for $.50 isn't relevant either. That's one of the important differences between the unskilled labor market and all others. Sellers are happy to sell more and more and more at a given price if competitors don't match it. Buyers of labor aren't happy to hire more and more and more at a given price if their competitors don't match it. There are other differences too, like the fact that if prices have fallen below profitability, businesses will start to close their factories and not prostitute themselves just to keep the doors open and sell product for whatever they can get. But hew-mon laborers have this bizarre refusal to go out of business and die peacefully on the street when their labor doesn't pay enough to afford their long term needs. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:No one has said this, they said no one will hire unnecessary workers which seems to be your point, that if the cost is zero you will hire people just to mill about. Indeed, you will hire people to to assist the people doing the paperwork for the management of the people who organize the milling about. You will have entire planets of nothing but office space for support staff for your ridiculously complex organization, and yet you will still hunger for just one... more... employee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Apple only has as much demand for labour that is required to satisfy demand for its products, which too is not infinite. No more, no less. It could build a dozen more iphone factories starting tomorrow but it would make no economic sense. Starting with the fact that they own 0 iPhone factories now, because it's way more profitable to contract to Foxconn et al.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 00:09
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Starting with the fact that they own 0 iPhone factories now, because it's way more profitable to contract to Foxconn et al. Ya I just picked apple because they have enormous financial potential to hire more if they wanted to.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Indeed, you will hire people to to assist the people doing the paperwork for the management of the people who organize the milling about. You will have entire planets of nothing but office space for support staff for your ridiculously complex organization, and yet you will still hunger for just one... more... employee. This sounds like the Imperium of Man. Which does have infinite demand for cannon fodder to die fighting unimaginable horrors from beyond space and time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Apple only has as much demand for labour that is required to satisfy demand for its products, which too is not infinite. No more, no less. It could build a dozen more iphone factories starting tomorrow but it would make no economic sense. uh obviously this is not true. only an economic illiterate could insinuate that demand for iphones is not infinite. why, a friend of mine just bought an iphone last month! if they were paying me money to buy iphones, i'd buy several!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anyway, this whole mess still doesn't even touch the point I made about the monopsony power of employers. Yep low skilled workers are in high supply and comparatively not that high demand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 01:59
|
|