|
jrodefeld posted:Read your own posts aloud and you'll see why I generally ignore them. But I'll make an exception because you touched on something I'd wanted to talk about anyway. You might say there's been some changes in the economy in the last, oh, eight years, and they have absolutely nothing to do with fiat money.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:until they were making $30 an hour or whatever they made as manager. The number you are looking for is $19.00. Dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It was a pretty sweet job at that time in my life and I was sad to have to let it go when I moved after a year or so. But I don't think for a minute that I would have gotten that job without the stellar references I had accumulated during my teenage years. No hiring manager on the planet has ever called McDonalds for a reference. Never. Never ever. Except for maybe another McDonalds and probably not even then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Read your own posts aloud and you'll see why I generally ignore them. But I'll make an exception because you touched on something I'd wanted to talk about anyway. I'm calling bullshit, that never loving happened. I know engineers in college are at very high demand, but just because they're engineers doesn't mean they get $23 an hour, their own hours, and to basically be their own boss. ESPECIALLY WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS YOU SUGGESTED. You are so far up your own rear end in a top hat that you love eating your own poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Read your own posts aloud and you'll see why I generally ignore them. But I'll make an exception because you touched on something I'd wanted to talk about anyway. Given your past history of lying and changing your story and feelings to match the views of the website you're on, I'm pretty sure you're lying about this, because "making up poo poo about your work history to support your insane, sociopathic views" seems entirely in character for you. But I'm going to even assume that this is true (though it's probably not, because you're a dishonest shitweasel)... jrodefeld posted:But it is flatly untrue that there isn't a path upward in even retail companies. Every manager I ever talked to during those years started as a regular employee and worked their way up until they were making $30 an hour or whatever they made as manager. Now, nobody is claiming that managing a Taco Bell is the height of accomplishment, but management skills certainly translate to other occupations. Holy poo poo you really have no idea what you're talking about. $30/hour as a manager at Taco Bell/etc?  THAT IS NOT A THING THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS All I just did was google "manager mcdonalds wages". Google posted:Fast Food Manager $8.34 - $12.02 Hey, look, it's anything that happened in economic history, ever: the greatest enemy of jrodefeld. jrodefeld posted:To claim that these starter jobs are worthless because there is no upward mobility and other, higher paying employers don't care one bit about your early work history is flatly false. Your basis for this is... I'm going to guess [extended fart noise]? jrodefeld posted:I got my first real, legitimate good job when I was 21 and still in college. Flipping burgers at McDonald's didn't translate "directly" skills-wise to what I was asked to do, but my references I believe proved the difference. The job was a computer engineer position, where I had to work with AutoCAD, do surveying and plot construction for a company that built buildings and managed construction in the town I lived in for a while. A bit of everything. The job paid $23 an hour, which is not bad for a 21 year old kid. I could pick my own hours, do the work on my own time. If I wanted to work 20 hours one week I could. If I wanted to work 40 the next and any time in between I could. No bosses looking over my shoulder, I got to chill in an air conditioned room listening to music and working on a computer, or take a company car around taking pictures and listening to music while I surveyed construction sites or took pictures. "I got paid to do very little actual work. I feel like my references were the difference despite the fact that I have no evidence for this, and there is probably vital information I'm leaving out because I am a proven dishonest liar." Yep. [extended fart noise] jrodefeld posted:It was a pretty sweet job at that time in my life and I was sad to have to let it go when I moved after a year or so. But I don't think for a minute that I would have gotten that job without the stellar references I had accumulated during my teenage years. You think this because you are a self-centered, narcissistic, egotistical manchild who probably huffs his own farts because he thinks they smell like roses. jrodefeld posted:There are all kinds of reasons why an employer will choose one applicant over another. All other things being equal, the person who at twenty one already has a work history of over half a dozen jobs and stellar recommendations has a substantial advantage over another person who is applying for his or her first job. Believe me, any idiot could have quickly gotten the skills necessary to do that $23 an hour job. You don't need a college degree or substantial technical training in order to get any decent paying job. I learned a lot of it on the job because they were willing to take a chance that I could do so. "I literally don't have any empathy for other human beings because I am incapable of understanding the advantages I grew up with. Everyone can ask their grandparents to pay for frivolous medical expenses to get fillings removed, right?" jrodefeld posted:But I can guarantee one thing. If the minimum wage was $15 an hour when I was a teenager, I wouldn't have gotten any of those jobs. I wouldn't have had any money saved up by the time I was in my twenties, and I probably wouldn't have gotten that good job at 21. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
I can completely believe Jrode got that kind of ride, or at least an approximate equivalent of it seen through some nostalgiac glasses. I would just question that the "great references" were from, say, working at McD's, as opposed to, say, his parents knowing the company's owner. I will be fair that he probably was capable of performing the basic job duties, and based upon his dedication to vomiting up evangelical material about the great and holy church of Capital, probably didn't gently caress it up - but I'd hardly call that merit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:To claim that these starter jobs are worthless because there is no upward mobility and other, higher paying employers don't care one bit about your early work history is flatly false. I did tutoring before I did some engineering temp work. Do you know how relevant that tutoring work was to anyone when I applied for jobs? Completely irrelevant. Even for my very first temp industry job, they didn't give two flying fucks about my tutoring experience - all they cared about was my degree and areas of study. And that was tutoring work, work that pays at least twice as much as the minimum wage and is much more respected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I worked jobs as a teenager. I had a paper route when I was 13. When I was 16 or so, I worked at McDonald's, hardly a cushy position. I worked at Taco Bell and I worked at Ralph's grocery stores. I worked at or slightly above minimum wage during those years. It didn't matter that much to me. I got a bit of money and saved some of it. I had some disposable income and got to hang out with my friends at work. I got a few pay raises but I never stayed at one job long enough to work my way up in any one establishment. But it is flatly untrue that there isn't a path upward in even retail companies. Every manager I ever talked to during those years started as a regular employee and worked their way up until they were making $30 an hour or whatever they made as manager. Now, nobody is claiming that managing a Taco Bell is the height of accomplishment, but management skills certainly translate to other occupations. Even if this poo poo was true, it still wouldn't solve the problem, because how many managers does McDonalds need? Three or four per location? Compare that to the number of other employees that they have, I'm getting a high end of 50 staffers per, more likely 30-40. That means that an absolute maximum of 10% of the people who start on the floor are going to get advanced to manager. Everybody else is poo poo out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Karia posted:Even if this poo poo was true, it still wouldn't solve the problem, because how many managers does McDonalds need? Three or four per location? Compare that to the number of other employees that they have, I'm getting a high end of 50 staffers per, more likely 30-40. That means that an absolute maximum of 10% of the people who start on the floor are going to get advanced to manager. Everybody else is poo poo out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb here but having worked in the corporate world for far too long I'm pretty sure all things being equal "this guy worked a bunch of random bullshit jobs for a few months at a time when he has a teenager" carries less weight than "eh, I liked that guy's tie" or "he seemed kinda funny" or "I think I talked to his hot sister at a bar a year or so ago." Nobody at any point gave a gently caress about the six months you spent bagging groceries at Ralph's, jrode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
It's the Just World Fallacy. Jrod earned that job through hard work and determination and not sheer dumb luck (and probably some nepotism). Because if that wasn't the case then everything he'd been taught would be a lie and he'd be a horrible monster. And since he is perfect and gorgeous then ipso facto it was because of glowing references from his time at Taco Bell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
I hire engineers both right out of college and experienced ones, right-the-gently caress now. It's a major part of my job duties. In no part of the hiring process do we ever give a crap about food service jobs they held as a teenager. For experienced people: we want industry experience, technical skills, and education. For new grads we look at coursework, GPA, volunteer work or internships with relevant technical experience, achievements in STEM competitions and so forth. "This enterprising young man worked his way up to shift manager at mickeyd's, he's really going places! How'd you like a real job, Johnny" is such a laughable Randian fantasy novel that I don't even know what to say. I could post the data on the percentage of fast food workers that are middle-aged with a family (that they can't feed on $7.25/hr, let alone the $2/hr jrod wants to see them make) but eh he won't acknowledge it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's the Just World Fallacy. Jrod earned that job through hard work and determination and not sheer dumb luck (and probably some nepotism). Because if that wasn't the case then everything he'd been taught would be a lie and he'd be a horrible monster. And since he is perfect and gorgeous then ipso facto it was because of glowing references from his time at Taco Bell. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most anyone can use AutoCAD after some on the job training as long as they have some prior computer experience. Like Jrod isn't a special snowflake, and that's part of the reason he earned a job where he did jack poo poo. Anyone else notice that he went to college in his loving hometown according to that story? Edit: if AutoCAD is really difficult then I REALLY want Jrod to tell me the technical details of what he did. IN DETAIL you fuckwit Twerkteam Pizza fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Anyone else notice that he went to college in his loving hometown according to that story? Eh, community college is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I'm new to the arguing with libertarians pastime here on SA. Has he explicitly said that white people are naturally better than other races by some metric of human quality? I'll bring you up to speed then. Of course I haven't said anything of the sort, and I've even gone out of my way to explain the libertarian justification for reparations for slavery, openly support the Black Lives Matter movement and call for criminal justice reform and I've acknowledged that racism persists and is an impediment to economic opportunity for some people. What I have stated is that the overemphasis on racism as being the explanatory factor in black progress or non-progress causes us to neglect other important factors that ought to be addressed. There are a lot of racist cops in the country, I recognize that. I don't condone it and remember that I don't support the State being involved in policing anything so how could I be indifferent to abuse doled out by State officials against citizens? The more fundamental problem is that we have all kinds of laws on the books that ought not to be crimes and these laws give police, whatever their motives, the excuse to accost black people and instigate aggression against them. How many times have we heard "we thought he might have drugs on him" being an excuse for harassing a person of color? If there were no laws against possession of drugs in the first place, police would have far less excuse for harassing minorities. As a libertarian, I have advocated for the immediate legalization of all drugs and the immediate freeing of all people, including of course the disproportionate number of black men, who are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. Immediately this would cut out the violence inherent in the drug trade, by bringing a black market out of the shadows. Families would be reunited, black men would not be tragically killed in gangs that are sustained by and enticing due to the money to be made selling drugs. Legitimate employment would again be more desirable. I'd also advocate for the immediate suspension of all occupational licensure requirements and regulations which prevent poor blacks and the poor more broadly from opening their own businesses. I'm sure that you recognize that a lot of these burdensome regulations are not put in place simply to keep the public safe. Oftentimes they are put in place by established industry to keep out competition by making the cost of doing business much higher. We have a situation where Federal regulators are cracking down on girls who want to braid hair. They didn't go to "hair-do school" and they don't have the proper certification! This is what Walter Williams has said in his documentary "The State Against Blacks". There are artificial barriers to black progress that are erected by the legal system. This problem is systemic and requires a multi-tiered approach. This is what libertarians have been saying for decades. So all this bullshit about me, or libertarians more broadly, being "white supremacists" is dishonest in the extreme. I think the program I have outlined above, if implemented, would do more for black progress than any other policy that has been tried since the Civil Rights Act, which to be clear libertarians support with the single exception of private businesses having the right under the law to choose to associate or disassociate with whoever they choose. The same precedent that permitted this generally good outcome in private property violations, is used to deprive black business owners of their property under eminent domain. That is a principled issue and has no bearing on any views on what people should do, or have the moral obligation to do. One last point I'll make about an issue that I consider to be very racist but that nobody talks about. Gun control. White liberals who generally live in safe neighborhoods want to limit access to the means of self defense. Firearms allow even the physically weak and vulnerable to protect themselves. And, since blacks tend to live in less safe neighborhoods, their need for self protection is greater than the rich white liberals who live in safe communities and actually can rely on police for protection, not to mention private security and body-guards. Talk about white privilege! Someone who agrees with me entirely is rapper Killer Mike, who is a staunch gun-rights advocate. I think Killer Mike is great. I've got both Watch the Throne albums and they are phenomenal. He's intelligent and respectful. I know he supports Bernie Sanders, but he has also made it clear that he doesn't agree with Bernie on this issue. I don't believe that we should support laws which make it more difficult for poor blacks to defend themselves and their property. If anything we should have gun control against the police, and strip them of their military-grade armor, tanks and weaponry. And I'll give a shout-out to Bernie Sanders and say that he is right that, if we must have State police existing at all which I dispute, the police ought to look like the communities they serve. There should be the same proportion of races in the police department and they should be accountable to the community not to Washington D.C. or some outside political force. I understand that I don't always emphasize the points that I ought to, and I sometimes assume people have a greater familiarity with the broader libertarian tradition than they really do, but the literature is literally replete with anti-racism writings and specific programs and proposals for addressing the plight of minorities, because they indeed are the victims of racist policies, police abuse, and incarceration and this deserves specific attention. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Eh, community college is a thing. my bad, that was a little classist
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Instead of using gold for literally anything else, let us hoard it in large caverns underground, so we can enjoy its stability:  Sure - gold seems unstable over time. But any Bitcoin enthusiast could tell you that a linear graph is hopeless. If you really want to understand something, then you need to graph it on a logarithmic scale.  See? Much clearer. We now observe that the major deviations are all in the past, and that recent history is much more stable. This is obviously closer to the truth - as information technology enables more people to learn about gold, their trust in it ought to increase. But the picture is still incomplete. Praxeology informs us that gold is perfect, and therefore what we're seeing is actually fluctuation in the value of the US Dollar. You can try to fiddle with CPI baskets, but everyone knows that they're the creation of a bloated and corrupt federal bureaucracy. The logical solution is to remove that pesky fiat dollar from the denominator position, and replace it with something much more worthy. The result?  Perfect stability, just as Mises intended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How many times have we heard "we thought he might have drugs on him" being an excuse for harassing a person of color? jrodefeld posted:But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent? I don't know, you tell me fucker
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Read your own posts aloud and you'll see why I generally ignore them. But I'll make an exception because you touched on something I'd wanted to talk about anyway. I'm going to say something that will probably blow your mind: The "experience" of working retail/food service jobs as a teenager is not the same as an adult. In which I mean experience not in "I have job experience" but like how one "experiences" an event or period in your life. As a teenager I worked three food service jobs: Dish Washer at IHOP, Dish Washer at KFC, Drive-Thru at Taco Bell. It's easy as a naive kid to believe in the ladder of advancement in these positions. At IHOP, if I worked hard I could become a line chef! At KFC, I could become a manager! At Taco Bell, I could become a regional manager! During college I worked a few more food service positions and decided I was loving done with that poo poo. Because that ladder doesn't exist. Food service has a hell of a turn over rate, and the only people who stay around for forever are already managers, and they're pulling favors for the people above them, trust me. After college, graduating in 2008 in the midst of economic down turn, the only "good job" I had was one which I got through nepotism and still turned out to be a nightmare. After that job I was stuck between call centers, temp work, and retail. And trust me, none of that work experience helps you to get a job except in those three categories. Climbing the ladder in a mom-and-pop is impossible, because the company is so small, and their 18 year old just graduated nephew will get the management position before you do. Climbing the ladder in corporate retail is like fighting the beast from hell. If you start retail in a part-time position, you can forget about management altogether, because they already have the idea that your peak usefulness will occur at 2-3 years. You basically have to work part time for 1-2 years before they'll consider you for full time, all the while you're getting passed over for positions by outside applicants. You get into full time and you have to do the "department dance" in which you are contractually obligated to remain in one department for a minimum of 6 months, and to even be a viable candidate for Assistant Management, you have to work at least 4 different departments, with at least one being the front end. So, if everything has been going well, you've been working your retail job for 4 years and you apply for the ASM position ($10-$12/hr), assuming one has opened up. I hope you've been chummy with the Store Managers, because if even one doesn't like the cut of your jib, you can forget about ever getting an ASM position at that store. Maybe your best bet is to transfer to the next nearest retail store which is probably a hour out of your way. But lets say you do get that cushy $12/hr ASM position. Now you have to stay at this position for a minimum of one year, and if you want to get to a proper salaried Management position, you need to do the department dance again. So now it's been 8 years with the same loving store, you're probably making $13.50/hr. You apply for a Management position. Now you will have to move, because it's doubtful that your store will have an open position (the store managers that were there when you started are still there now). Your store managers will have one last opportunity to back-stab and sabotage your efforts (of course it'll be because gee golly, you're just such a hard worker and what would we do without you! and not some incestuous back-biting jealousy and nepotism, oh never!) If you get through this final hurdle, depending on the company, you can enjoy a cushy job making $24,000~$30,000 a year. You'll be working 60 hours a week (but you were probably doing that as an ASM anyways), no overtime (so you're probably actually taking a pay hit), and now you get to deal with all the corporate bullshit you were shielded from when you were a lowly ASM. Maybe after two years (so you've been working at this retail chain for 10 years now) you can leverage your experience into an entry-level management position at a "real company". If you started this when you were 18, you'd be 28 now. If you had the experience I did, and started this after college, then you're 34 now. The people competing against you are 21-24 year olds who have Business degrees and MBAs and zero management experience. And the real tragedy of all this? Even with five years of store-management experience, that 24y/o with an MBA and zero experience is more hire-able than you'll ever be, because the Hiring Manager knows that your experience translates into "bad habits" that you've picked up in the retail world that will be counter productive in the corporate world. The 24 y/o will be easier to mold into the corporate culture that the company is looking for. And this is without going into the incestuous nature of retail politics that poisons the well, where every department is basically it's own little clique where people literally conspire against each other. In reality, if management isn't moving you up within 6 months of being hired, you can loving forget about ever being a manager. When you hit that 2-3 years at one store, the managers will either try to force you out in favor of fresh blood, or stick you in a dead end position. Everyone who has worked retail over the age of 18 knows what I mean about the 2-3 year thing, too. Perhaps you should venture into the A/T subforum and ask all the posters in the "Reasons I no longer wish to work retail" thread and talk to them about bootstrapping it to being Wal-mart store manager. It's easy to look back on our first jobs as teenagers with rose-tinted glasses and think of the infinite possibilities that were open to us then. But those memories are lies. Just like your story of how you got your cushy job at age 21 because of loving Taco Bell. Working drive thru at Taco Bell only ever helped me get one job, "Sandwich Artist" at loving Subway. And trust me, my years of hard work and dutiful attendance at food service and retail positions means jack loving squat when you're trying to design airplanes, and means jack loving squat in my current employment as well. I spent entirely too much time in writing this post and too much trust that jrode will actually read it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:
Goldmine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The more fundamental problem is that we have all kinds of laws on the books that ought not to be crimes and these laws give police, whatever their motives, the excuse to accost black people and instigate aggression against them. How many times have we heard "we thought he might have drugs on him" being an excuse for harassing a person of color? If there were no laws against possession of drugs in the first place, police would have far less excuse for harassing minorities. Hmmmm... Police are instigators of aggression against minorities jrodefeld posted:What I meant was if you were a member of the police or homeland security who was investigating a purported plot by ISIS to attack Los Angeles, would you make the assumption based on the statistics that the attacker would be of Middle Eastern descent and also a Muslim? Or would you really think it is reasonable that you'd suspect the elderly Jewish grandmother just as much as the twenty-something guy who just flew in from Syria? Police make up reasons to suspect people of color and accost them jrodefeld posted:If I was walking down the streets of Compton in Los Angeles and I see a young black man who fits a certain description or is acting in a suspect way, I might legitimately concluded that he is probably a gang member, only because a majority of Crips and Bloods members happen to be black. I'm not going to make the same assumption about a middle aged white guy because there aren't any middle age white guys in the Crips and Bloods gangs. The police use suspected drug use as an excuse to harass people jrodefeld posted:But how was I out of line to bring up Trayvon's drug use? It is all factually accurate and if Trayvon was buying ingrediates to make Lean, it could go a long way towards explaining his supposedly "suspicious" behavior. It is not conclusive, but all of this relevent. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Also jrodefeld posted:And I'll give a shout-out to Bernie Sanders and say that he is right that, if we must have State police existing at all which I dispute, the police ought to look like the communities they serve. There should be the same proportion of races in the police department and they should be accountable to the community not to Washington D.C. or some outside political force. What do you think happens to the racial makeup and accountability of a police force if they only answer to the local community, and the local community is majority white and virulently racist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Read your own posts aloud and you'll see why I generally ignore them. But I'll make an exception because you touched on something I'd wanted to talk about anyway. THE FIRST RUNG IS MINIMUM WAGE YOU COCKSUCKER gently caress YOU
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Also you ignorant motherfucker you absolutely do need training to get jobs that pay well You want me to talk to you like an adult and not a pissy little oval office who shouts about how the world works despite never looking out the loving window? Listen to other people. Until then, gently caress yourself. Ban Jrode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:THE FIRST RUNG IS MINIMUM WAGE YOU COCKSUCKER gently caress YOU MAKING MINIMUM WAGE HIGHER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THOSE JOBS YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER Jesus Christ I want to hold you down and piss in your mouth and as I anoint you with my pungent stream I will softly whisper "gold standard bitch"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
 I can't stop laughing. What kind of anti-reality bubble do you have to live in to hold simultaneous beliefs like this. Hrmmm yes local police are openly and violently racist and are an ever present danger to minorities, we need to remove what little state and department of justice oversight exists and give direct control to the local White Citizens' Council
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:MAKING MINIMUM WAGE HIGHER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THOSE JOBS YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER First off, I giggled Second off, data about raising the minimum wage as a good thing can be taken from Seattle's current economic growth. Jrod ignores emperical evidence though so go figure
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd also advocate for the immediate suspension of all occupational licensure requirements and regulations which prevent poor blacks and the poor more broadly from opening their own businesses. I'm sure that you recognize that a lot of these burdensome regulations are not put in place simply to keep the public safe. Oftentimes they are put in place by established industry to keep out competition by making the cost of doing business much higher. You're a thundering moron. You do realize that if you eliminated official state-sanctioned licenses, that people would only hire those who earned those licenses when they were valid, and would then set up private programs to provide those self-same licenses, right? Nobody wants to hire a structural engineer without any training or an official degree. Nobody wants to have an unlicensed doctor working on them. Few people would even want to get a haircut from an unlicensed person when the licensed person is an option. Even worse, now you're going to end up with multiple competing licensing establishments, multiple businesses qualifying other businesses (for things like restaurant ratings), each of which charge different fees and have different trustworthiness. Then the customer has to decide which of all of these competing businesses and rating agencies are legitimate. Unfortunately, once you get beyond something as trivial as a bad haircut or as survivable as a foodborne illness, you start running into territory like collapsing buildings and doctors who don't know their patients rear end from the six foot deep hole they're delivering them to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
We'll just go back to the Hammurabi code way of doing it. If you build a building, and people die because that building collapsed, then you and your entire family gets murdered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:We'll just go back to the Hammurabi code way of doing it. If you build a building, and people die because that building collapsed, then you and your entire family gets murdered. Nothing wrong with some skin in the game. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Libertarians are notoriously bad at understanding their opponents arguments well enough to empathize with them. In their defense, the opponents of libertarians tend to skip past arguing and go immediately to mockery. I think most libertarians genuinely believe that government is just getting in the way and that if we just get government out of the way, then everything will sort itself out. The fact that there is genuinely zero evidence that this is true and that places with small or ineffective governments tend to be not very pleasant places to live should be enough to convince these people that maybe their case isn't ironclad. And while it think it's still possible to justify a belief in libertarianism in the face of all of this historical evidence I have rarely seen a libertarian even attempt to articulate that justification. I have to single out this post because of how un-self aware it is. Are you aware that for a good portion of the twentieth century, "fashionable" academic and intellectual classes spoke openly in favor of Socialism (and I don't mean Sweden)? During the "Progressive Era" State Socialism, command and control economies and extreme central planning were considered not only a respectable view, but an incredible breakthrough for human understanding? Professional Leftists fell all over themselves to praise Marx and classical liberalism fell severely out of fashion. "Wage and Price Controls can work!", "The Bretton Woods Agreement will hold!", etc. Just as the Left saw socialism as a brave new insight for humanity, the Right who were really more proto-fascists and militarists drummed up all this fear about Communism taking over the world, so much so that we have to constantly build up our military and create a worldwide empire in order to prevent the Communists from taking over the planet. It was only the libertarians, remnants from the classical liberal tradition, who correctly observed the flaws in Socialist central planning and said that the Soviet Union was no threat. They would collapse because their system is non-viable. In 1989, the Soviet Union collapsed and libertarians were vindicated. Actual Marxists and radical socialists became discredited among the mainstream, as people generally understood that their views had been discredited. And proponents of the free market did a victory lap of sorts. Bill Clinton claimed "The Era of Big Government is Over" and everyone at least tacitly acknowledged the superiority of the free economy over central planning. This was the big question of the 20th century and the libertarians decisively won it, and you accuse us of being on the wrong side of history? I've already established that countries that have greater economic liberty tend to be more prosperous, with longer life expectancies, a larger middle class and higher living standards all around. Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand are three examples of nations that tend to adhere closer to economic liberty than other nations and they are among the most prosperous. Here is the new top 10 from the Heritage Institute. No UAE or Qatar in the top 10 so maybe you'll look at the substance of the ranking this time. 1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. New Zealand 4. Switzerland 5. Australia 6. Canada 7. Chile 8. Ireland 9. Estonia 10. United Kingdom So, according to people who have studied the issue, the nations which adhere closest to the libertarian ideal of economic liberty are also the most prosperous. Explain again how there is zero evidence of libertarian ideas leading to better outcomes? Yes, I recognize these countries are not perfectly libertarian, many have social welfare states of one form or another, but they are MORE libertarian than the others. As I've explained previously, the extent of economic liberty is what generates the prosperity that generates high living standards and allows the poor to be taken care of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have to single out this post because of how un-self aware it is. Are you aware that for a good portion of the twentieth century, "fashionable" academic and intellectual classes spoke openly in favor of Socialism (and I don't mean Sweden)? During the "Progressive Era" State Socialism, command and control economies and extreme central planning were considered not only a respectable view, but an incredible breakthrough for human understanding? Professional Leftists fell all over themselves to praise Marx and classical liberalism fell severely out of fashion. You haven't explained poo poo rear end in a top hat, you've just said it over and over again like it was a self evident truth
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have to single out this post because of how un-self aware it is.  edit: Apologies, but holy hell, how do you even write something like that, jrode, and avoid immediately collapsing into a black hole from the sheer level of irony? God drat you are dense. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:1. Hong Kong Okay And I guess let only the richest executives of the biggest corporations choose the president so we can be number 1 like Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay And also be a historical anomaly that can in no way be replicated the world over like Hong Kong. And have literally half of all land in the city be public housing like Hong Kong. The Hong Kong example is so full of poo poo that it is astonishing anyone can use it with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
As has been pointed out already, but it bears repeating, all of those countries have social welfare states in one form or another. So, perhaps, jrode, just perhaps it's not that they're more Libertarian that is the reason why they're doing so well, but the fact that they are social welfare states? If a social welfare state with free healthcare, education, public housing and the like is Socialist and thus evil, why is it, then, that the US which has only a vestigial welfare system at best is not top of the list? Oh right. Because 'leave it to the free market/no taxes' is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
"Here is information about freedom from the Heritage Foundation!" ...a group which considers Margaret Thatcher a saint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, what makes Canada more 'economically free' than the USA? Is it our Universal Health Care? Our national sales tax? I hear we have higher income tax rates on the wealthy and more government spending, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:As has been pointed out already, but it bears repeating, all of those countries have social welfare states in one form or another. So, perhaps, jrode, just perhaps it's not that they're more Libertarian that is the reason why they're doing so well, but the fact that they are social welfare states? If a social welfare state with free healthcare, education, public housing and the like is Socialist and thus evil, why is it, then, that the US which has only a vestigial welfare system at best is not top of the list? You're doing praxeology backwards. You're looking at the outcome and then comparing specific policies they have in common to tease out a correlation that could point to a cause. In praxeology we assume that free markets are the cause of prosperity and well-being, so whichever countries have the best outcomes are the most libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Here is the new top 10 from the Heritage Institute. No UAE or Qatar in the top 10 so maybe you'll look at the substance of the ranking this time. My favorite thing about this list is that we're number 11 despite spending more on defense than all of the countries in the top 10 combined (which counts massively against us by these rankings). We're not even number 11 by that wide a margin! Look, if you're going to cherry pick statistics from a source, don't be quite so obvious about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
All right, this thread will stay open until Sunday for people to let out their post-jRod angst, and then be put to pasture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:46
|
|