|
xwing posted:That "management" could be a second generation Hispanic where being bilingual is an advantage. How else would you like to imply that the idea is inherently racist? Here is what you said: xwing posted:
Your reasoning here is that immigration is good, because it's a supply of superexploited people who can be used to undermine working class gains, specifically, wages that aren't utter poo poo. You love the idea of that because to you it's a big saving on wages. You go on to state that the american working class can't complain about having their gains destroyed, because as far as you're concerned, not being immigrants automatically makes "their spot" above the foreigners. You've even now specified that you imagine the immigrants to be hispanic, so you've explicitly laid out a hierarchy where the brown people are at the bottom. Below even people with less qualification than them.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I love that xwing is basically agreeing with what is happening in the IT Industry in Insurance, at Disney, and multiple other places: I live near Disney... how many raging people against this have stopped going to Disney? or have you switched your insurance? No? You're probably benefiting from this in some way. Your 401K, cheaper goods, etc... Baronjutter posted:If you want everyone making higher wages we first need to lower everyone's wages. To make higher wages possible, someone will be lower somewhere. May not be in your industry, or at your "level", but somewhere wages will get depressed. Fact of life, unless we just want to inflate everything. Minimum wages don't magically make wages higher, they really just ensure that you legally can't hire for less than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:In my proposed society, everyone is in management except Dennis. We all work very hard to optimize our use of Dennis. Isn't that basically the plot of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
xwing posted:To make higher wages possible, someone will be lower somewhere. May not be in your industry, or at your "level", but somewhere wages will get depressed. Fact of life, unless we just want to inflate everything. Nobody is complaining about inequality. We get that a guy with 3 decades of experience and a managerial position is higher on the ladder than then Charlie the New Guy working in the mail room. Manager dude gets a bigger paycheck; he probably deserves it. What is being complained about is that people like you advocate paying Charlie a starvation wage. What's that, Charlie? Your children are hungry and need clothes? Lol gently caress you dude, Enrique will do your job for a third of what we're paying you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
xwing posted:I live near Disney... how many raging people against this have stopped going to Disney? or have you switched your insurance? No? You're probably benefiting from this in some way. Your 401K, cheaper goods, etc...Minimum wages don't magically make wages higher, they really just ensure that you legally can't hire for less than that. Oh I can field this one. Capitalism is not something you can realistically opt out of and participation in it does not constitute meaningful support for it. xwing posted:To make higher wages possible, someone will be lower somewhere. May not be in your industry, or at your "level", but somewhere wages will get depressed. Fact of life, unless we just want to inflate everything. Yes to redistribute you have to take from somewhere, the sensible place to take from is the concentrations of wealth, not other workers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its not like these companies need people to buy their products or anything. You're taking into account "other people" as part of the economy, this is collectivist thinking. Also if companies are making more money there's more money to buy products and everyone wins. Let's take a company that's making 100 million profit a year currently. Let's say they have a lot of expenses, one of them being labour at 100 million as well. Now let's say the government allows
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
xwing posted:To make higher wages possible, someone will be lower somewhere. May not be in your industry, or at your "level", but somewhere wages will get depressed. Fact of life, unless we just want to inflate everything. If you believe this than any argument for capitalism as a universal good is gone and the working class would be better off killing the elite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
The reason minimum wages work is because they force capital to operate at a lower profit. Otherwise they will do what maximises profit, which, optimally, is enslaving everybody. But keeping wages as low as possible will suffice if the law does not permit actual chattel slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
I do love the strain of libertarian thought where it doesn't say factually wrong things per se, but morally wrong things. "We should do this terrible thing that will harm you, because it's good for my business". The way they very clearly lay out the interests of the capitalist class, intricately detailing how they want to gently caress everyone over, but don't understand why working class or even middle class people would oppose them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
xwing posted:I live near Disney... how many raging people against this have stopped going to Disney? or have you switched your insurance? No? You're probably benefiting from this in some way. Your 401K, cheaper goods, etc... Well, it certainly stopped them from going to Disney. Of COURSE I'm benefiting in some way. Hell, to NOT benefit from mass exploitation, I'd have to basically stop consuming everthing. But being stuck in a system where I'm forced to participate does not mean I suddenly have to stop calling for improvements and stop calling out companies when they do wrong? What the hell is wrong with you? "Exploitation is wrong, but WHOOPS, I bought a product or service that is involved in it, guess I can't speak up then. Circle of Capitalism"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
xwing posted:Example of my personal stance: Immigration. The LP platform is a bit wacky, but the core is alright to me. A wall is asinine as Trump is sticking to. I welcome free movement of labor. I'm in a construction related field and the labor would make costs drop drastically providing a lot of work getting off the ground. If you as an american that has an education (even a H.S. drop-out) and speaks english can't find your spot in that scenario (management), I have little sympathy. Some of the hard core Libertarians advocate for no passports and open borders... I realize this is not possible or wise. If coming here is as simple as a declaration of: "I'm here, I'm working, Yes, I'll pay taxes"... I'd be pretty happy though. According to the US Department of Labour (based off of 2014 data), there are approximately ~1,600,000 manager-type jobs in the US that require only a high school degree or comparable education. They have an average growth/job outlook of ~5%, meaning about ~80,000 new available positions a year. Hell, let's round up to 100,000 to account for the growth in 2015. There are currently about ~7,400,000 unemployed persons in the US. The majority of them being able to just walk in somewhere and get that kind of job is simply not a mathematical possibility. Feel free to cut that number in half, or down to a quarter, to control for anybody in there not english speaking and not actively looking for work, and it still doesn't work out. Even if every single currently employed manager in those positions was to suddenly commit suicide tomorrow, your scenario would still be completely fantastical on a national scale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:According to the US Department of Labour (based off of 2014 data), there are approximately ~1,600,000 manager-type jobs in the US that require only a high school degree or comparable education. They have an average growth/job outlook of ~5%, meaning about ~80,000 new available positions a year. Hell, let's round up to 100,000 to account for the growth in 2015. Yes but he's hoping that white supremacy would come along and solve that problem
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Oh I can field this one. Capitalism is not something you can realistically opt out of and participation in it does not constitute meaningful support for it. To be fair, xwing is the first libertarian I see that acknowledges the very marxist concept of surplus value as being worker exploitation with the savings aimed firmly upwards. The fun thing is that he thinks it's awesome. I've seen ancaps and libertarians say that wealth comes from innovations, accessing new markets, greater efficiency and all, but he just out and said that paying more people less is where profits are. There's a crooked purity to that. Now, why he thinks that would stop at his level (or at any level that is not bag capital owners) is decidedly up in the air. I also liked that he implied that immigrant halfbreeds will even have a competitive advantage as bilingual overseers over more recent chattel! See, everyone wins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:According to the US Department of Labour (based off of 2014 data), there are approximately ~1,600,000 manager-type jobs in the US that require only a high school degree or comparable education. They have an average growth/job outlook of ~5%, meaning about ~80,000 new available positions a year. Hell, let's round up to 100,000 to account for the growth in 2015. That's just conjecture. You don't know that there won't be a sudden need for 8 million more managers once we abolish regulations! So it's totally logical to assume that there will be!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:To be fair, xwing is the first libertarian I see that acknowledges the very marxist concept of surplus value as being worker exploitation with the savings aimed firmly upwards. The fun thing is that he thinks it's awesome. Well I mean they're not wrong that wealth comes from innovation, at least in the sense that innovation permits more effective use of labour to convert it into greater value. But even then the result is not that everyone gets richer, the result is you start laying off people who are no longer needed because the process allows you to produce more with less labour, with the difference going to the owner of the factory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The libertarian answer to that is that it's the government's fault for daring to have a minimum wage or that it's proof that the government regulations are too tight. If it were easier to start a business then obviously all of those people would just do that. So cut regulations so poors can start businesses! The key for me is the "I have little sympathy for them" line. That rules out treating them as victims of Big Minimum Wage or anything else. It demands that we discount any cause of poverty beyond the poor themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The key for me is the "I have little sympathy for them" line. That rules out treating them as victims of Big Minimum Wage or anything else. It demands that we discount any cause of poverty beyond the poor themselves. Yeah that sort of thing happens and then people wonder why the poor are so unruly lately. I just have to wonder if these people think that there are infinite jobs out there or something along those lines. There just aren't enough jobs to go around at all let alone decent ones. Then that gets trotted out as an argument to actively suppress wages and make bad jobs worse. ...while the people that own everything crank up the rent every year. But nah, can't be systemic issues loving over the poor, they're just lazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But nah, can't be systemic issues loving over the poor, they're just lazy. Why can't the poor just stop being poor? Its like they like it or something! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:According to the US Department of Labour (based off of 2014 data), there are approximately ~1,600,000 manager-type jobs in the US that require only a high school degree or comparable education. They have an average growth/job outlook of ~5%, meaning about ~80,000 new available positions a year. Hell, let's round up to 100,000 to account for the growth in 2015. I am actually someone who does project management work(though I lack the title, getting paid as a lowly drafter) and I will tell you straight up that management is something that requires experience and stability to get to that point. You can't just walk out of HS and become a manager- in fact, there's a very good chance you will never be a manager for one reason or another, even if you work for a long period. I was very fortunate to make my transition into management but it took a lot of opportunities coming my way for it to work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Nobody is complaining about inequality. We get that a guy with 3 decades of experience and a managerial position is higher on the ladder than then Charlie the New Guy working in the mail room. Manager dude gets a bigger paycheck; he probably deserves it. Enhhhh, modern process and best practice standards have replaced the idea of decades of work moving you into "management." It is more of a horizontal position that supports labor but has retained the illusion of being superior and thus deserving of higher wage (much like the rest of white collar positions). We need to dramatically rethink the underlying biases we have concerning compensation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
xwing posted:To make higher wages possible, someone will be lower somewhere. May not be in your industry, or at your "level", but somewhere wages will get depressed. Fact of life, unless we just want to inflate everything. Inflation is already artificially reduced by people storing trillions upon trillions of dollars outside of the economy doing nothing to affect the flow of capital. The way of making a sensible economy is to have a large proportion of money in circulation to reward pioneering commodities and services instead of festering in the account of someone who pioneered two centuries ago and never contributed since.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Inflation is already artificially reduced by people storing trillions upon trillions of dollars outside of the economy doing nothing to affect the flow of capital. Smaug: Job creator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:To be fair, xwing is the first libertarian I see that acknowledges the very marxist concept of surplus value as being worker exploitation with the savings aimed firmly upwards. The fun thing is that he thinks it's awesome. The thing that gets me is the other-ing of the wage earner. Companies like to talk about the "us" being all the people on the "team" and being inclusive of employees, but on the bottom line, workers are simply an expense and expenses are to be minimized. CommieGIR posted:Smaug: Job creator. He subscribes to the
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the problem with libertarianism as a political third way in america is that you're either a libertarian-lite and you're prone to voting for one of the main parties depending on your other politics or you're a full on ideologue in which case the libertarian party is more of a containment zone for extremists like the green party. like there just aren't enough committed, moderate libertarians to make the party less of a zoo Maybe the best thing that could happen to a libertarian third party would be for the sort of party frequently imagined by every two-bit political columnist, vaguely-liberal billionaire, and centrist dinosaur to actually happen. It'd be somewhat socially liberal, quite fiscally conservative, and appeal heavily to the billionaire class. It wouldn't appeal to hardcore libertarians, but no party really can—politics is the art of getting poo poo done while working with other people, after all, and succeeding at it requires a willingness to compromise that dedicated ideologues often have a hard time with. But a party centered around legal weed, unrestricted guns, charter schools, a reduced welfare system, a greatly weakened regulatory state, no unions, and low taxes would suck the wind out of libertarians' sails. Those are their main sales pitches, the milk-before-meat that draws more casual people in before introducing them to the sterner ideological stuff. A functional libertarian third party still wouldn't succeed, of course. It'd get a tiny fraction of the vote at the federal level—still bigger than the comically-tiny 1% the Libertarian Party usually gets, but nowhere near enough to accomplish anything. Though if the party's disciplined enough it might become a viable third party purely at the municipal level for as long as billionaires keep funding it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
The wealthy are easily convinced that attempts to achieve social equality are futile where they are not misguided, but their poorer fellow citizens may need some persuasion. To this end, it is argued that inequality is both functional and inevitable. Unequal incomes are necessary in order to provide the incentives to make people work hard and efficiently. It is interesting how the advocates of social inequality think that the wealthy respond to quite different incentives from the poor. If the rich are to be persuaded to work, they require the stimulus of still greater wealth: hence the paramount importance of reducing taxes on high incomes. When dealing with the poor, in contrast, it is held that there is nothing like the prospect of still greater poverty as a work incentive: hence the paramount importance of strictly limiting the benefits to which they are entitled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
xwing posted:To make higher wages possible, someone will be lower somewhere. May not be in your industry, or at your "level", but somewhere wages will get depressed. Fact of life, unless we just want to inflate everything. Wages aren't zero sum. Why do you think they are? If the minimum wage jumped from seven dollars an hour to 10.5, McDonald's wouldn't cut a third of its hours to keep labor costs the same, they need those people working that many hours to keep the store functioning. If they didn't need them, they would have already cut the hours regardless. And inflation is far from inevitable. If consumers are running around with more money, companies are more than happy to make more product to accommodate the increase in demand. The only reasons they wouldn't just up production to keep up with demand is if there's another constraint: labor shortages, cash shortages, or material shortages. The first two are laughable on their face in this economy, and the third is highly industry-dependent and won't cause general inflation unless it's a broad-use good like oil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Smaug: Job creator. This is genuinely my way of describing super-capitalists. "You know that dragon in The Hobbit who just sat on a pile of gold even thought it did nothing for him? That's literally what the capitalist class does."
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:This is genuinely my way of describing super-capitalists. Not a fair comparison. Smaug did his own dirty work against the
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:This is genuinely my way of describing super-capitalists. "If those lazy dwarves want wealth, they have to work hard like me! Yes, I exploited them through a hostile takeover, but that's free market!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Not a fair comparison. Smaug did his own dirty work against the It's not a perfect metaphor I admit. For one thing a wizard isn't going to lead a bunch of small people to wreck the capitalist class. Lenin tried and got struck by wizard flu and things went to poo poo ever after.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"If those lazy dwarves want wealth, they have to work hard like me! Yes, I exploited them through a hostile takeover, but that's free market!" "Take it up with my DRO" Dragons' Rights Organisation
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It's not a perfect metaphor I admit. For one thing a wizard isn't going to lead a bunch of small people to wreck the capitalist class. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I am actually someone who does project management work (though I lack the title, getting paid as a lowly drafter)... You are the model of an efficient employee, doing all the work of management for none of the prestige and a fraction of the pay. Panzeh posted:I was very fortunate to make my transition into management but it took a lot of opportunities coming my way for it to work. See? The system works!  Why, it'll only take an entire section of your resume to explain that you were totally a manager despite what your lack of title, salary, or social connections imply!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
xwing posted:I live near Disney... how many raging people against this have stopped going to Disney? or have you switched your insurance? No? You're probably benefiting from this in some way. Your 401K, cheaper goods, etc... I'd just like to point out that the libertarians in this thread have railed specifically against this logic. Let me reword it while leaving the idea intact: quote:I live in the Statist States of America... how many raging libertarians against this have emigrated? or have you begun a campaign of resistance? No? You're probably benefiting from this in some way. Your low-crime society, clean food, etc...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Hi xwing what are your thoughts on universal healthcare vs for-profit healthcare? e: Hi xwing if you want to limit the number of questions that you answer then I'm actually more interested in the Rand Paul question below. In addition to Ron/Rand Paul I think it'd be useful to bundle that with your thoughts on the Civil Rights Act, please, since those guys are outspoken against the CRA. If you still have time for some talk on healthcare then that's cool. vvvvvvvvvv QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
xwing, I'm interested in your support of outspoken segregationists Ron and Rand Paul. Are you in favor of racial segregation and, if not, why isn't it a dealbreaker in your Presidential vote? What are your feelings on the Confederate States of America and their war against the United States?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
xwing, do you tango with tangerines? edit: you don't have to answer this. Grognan fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:You are the model of an efficient employee, doing all the work of management for none of the prestige and a fraction of the pay. To be fair I got well above market rate when I was hired but yeah still. It's not a good situation and the notion that anyone can do it is kinda ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:xwing, I'm interested in your support of outspoken segregationists Ron and Rand Paul. Are you in favor of racial segregation and, if not, why isn't it a dealbreaker in your Presidential vote? What are your feelings on the Confederate States of America and their war against the United States? The War of *Please ignore the Confederacy's planned invasion of a third of the Caribbean to set up more slave states.** **Yes, that website is by a Neo-Confederate. It's unfortunately the best summary of Robert May's The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire, 1854-1861 I could find.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
xwing's Libertarian economic plan that will help raise every (white) person out of poverty! Sign up now and become a manager today!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:42
|
|
