|
Ligur posted:Work in the private sector for a while and you'll notice that in the current age of globalism (and automagization) 10% increase in costs is the death knell of your loving business. A single company taking the 10% without its competitors doing so, certainly.
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
In a couple decades or so, assuming we haven't all starved to death from our arable land all drying out, the only political question will be who gets to own the robots that do all the work for us: the rich, or everyone. Of course by then we'll already have fully automated luxury capitalist robot armies to quell any uprisings so I think I know the answer to this one.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:What's the breakdown between public sector (including state owned companies) and private sector job on that number? Mostly private sector jobs, since public sector jobs kept on growing at a similar rate as they had over the past two decades.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The first public healthcare system in the world was introduced by noted leftist Otto von Bismarck in 1883. So what? The Wikipedias posted:A master of complex politics at home, Bismarck created the first welfare state in the modern world, with the goal of gaining working class support that might otherwise go to his Socialist enemies. So basically he implemented a socialist policy out of political expediency. It's still a socialist policy you moron. Edit: Forgot to call you a nazi oval office as is UKMT tradition. Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 22:33 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Oh great, another circlejerk about shorter workdays by permastudents who transform into business experts when this issue comes up (10% increase in labor costs? No biggie, I saw an income statement once!). I loved when the media was reporting on Sweden apparently moving to a 6 hour work day, which ended up meaning one experiment at a hospital (that turned out to be too costly: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...e-a7508581.html) and some plants. Maybe there'll be a day when 6 hours is the most efficient work day, but it's clearly not today. Even if business "could" absorb a x% increase in labor costs without job losses (which, with many industries teetering on the edge of profitability seems unlikely), it seems completely insane to think they would and wouldn't just automate or outsource. Which is partly where the unions' anti-foreigner attitudes come in.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I would refer you to GO gently caress YOURSELF YOU NAZI oval office. Why are you so loving desperate to kill poor people in other countries? that guy sucks and i can't wait until the day he finally breaks and starts posting about phrenology to purge him from the forum forever but please do not do this
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:It was done in 2000 in France and created 350 000 jobs for an extremely low cost overall. France was still in the growth phase of the economic cycle by then so it's not at all clear that the shorter work week did indeed lead to less unemployment; in any event, the effect of the shorter working week is certainly gone by now if you look at the unemployment rate, and there's no guarantee that making it even shorter will help; more likely, it will make sure noone entering the labour market gets a CDI anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Fiction posted:In a couple decades or so, assuming we haven't all starved to death from our arable land all drying out, the only political question will be who gets to own the robots that do all the work for us: the rich, or everyone. I have some confidence that European countries will be smart enough to introduce laws gradually reducing the work week and/or implement a UBI to a level where huge amounts of the population aren't completely economically dispossessed. Possibly misplaced confidence, but still, some confidence. There are still enough socialists / social democrats, strong unions etc to at least make it a decent possibility. The US though, with the overriding 'gently caress YOU GOT MINE' attitude that permeates their society top to bottom....thats definitely going to be a dystopian capitalist controlled hellscape. To an even greater degree than it already is.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Even if business "could" absorb a x% increase in labor costs without job losses (which, with many industries teetering on the edge of profitability seems unlikely), it seems completely insane to think they would and wouldn't just automate or outsource. Which is partly where the unions' anti-foreigner attitudes come in. Teetering on the edge of profitability...? As someone working in finance this attitude just baffles me. Any business which can't survive an unexpected 2-4% one-time hike in operating costs is not a business long for this world. When operating margins (that is costs before taxes and interest even factor in) are that low your industry is either undergoing vast technological change (hello half of retailing today) or market saturation has created a consumer-friendly market (hello steel and brent oil) and as the market gods decree someone is going to have to go bankrupt to restore order. Most sectors in the west which can be outsourced have already been outsourced. Furthermore, if a job paying a decent wage tips the scale in favor of automatizing that job then yeah that means that job probably should go away. I'm going to be controversial here and say that productivity gains are actually a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Oh great, another circlejerk about shorter workdays by permastudents who transform into business experts when this issue comes up (10% increase in labor costs? No biggie, I saw an income statement once!). I loved when the media was reporting on Sweden apparently moving to a 6 hour work day, which ended up meaning one experiment at a hospital (that turned out to be too costly: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...e-a7508581.html) and some plants. Maybe there'll be a day when 6 hours is the most efficient work day, but it's clearly not today. Dude and we were having a nice discussion about union support or lack of there off To immigrants.the only sectors that could not readily absorb the cost would be retail and food,and the extra expenditure would be partly compensated by a reduction in vat rates and labour taxes,which impact those industries in a big way.because you would have a increase in employment you would get 1) less government expenditure on social welfare 2) increased tax base 3) a fairer vat which is one of the most regressive taxes. I'm phoneposting now but there's a ton of literature about this and also its what happened in France in the 2000s like FFA said. The key to reducing the service impact to specific sectors like healthcare , police and other essential services is not reduction to 35 hours, its cutting it to 32,keeping the 8 hour work day and getting one extra off day. Automation is coming anyway,and its not because there's a 30,40,50 hour week.outsourcing already exist and its not because of a 30,40,50 hour week. Real talk here this is a thing that needs to happen in the near future because 50% youth unemployment is not a thing sustainable forever if you want to keep a functioning society. Here's the thing few people on the right and the left are willing to admit: you pay taxes so that a mob of hungry desperate people won't kill you. There's a big chunk of society that seems to chose to forget this fact throughout history and when they relearn it they relearn it the hard way. Edit:there's a bunch of stuff linked to this like capping pensions and wages to multipliers of the minimum wage that ill dig up when I get home,of course it means a major restructure of the current system so lol of course it will never happen. So for what its worth when I'm in a roving mad cannibalistic mob I hope I don't kill and eat any of you.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:Here's the thing few people on the right and the left are willing to admit: you pay taxes so that a mob of hungry desperate people won't kill you. This by the way, for those of you who don't know, was an idea coined by noted leftist and grandfather of loving capitalism Adam Smith way back in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:Here's the thing few people on the right and the left are willing to admit: you pay taxes so that a mob of hungry desperate people won't kill you. Every time I've gotten into a debate with a right winger who hates the idea of welfare about the subject I never try to appeal to their humanitarian side any more (because it doesn't exist). Instead I ask what they think that 5-10% of the population that is currently living on welfare would do if they couldn't afford food? Would they just let their children starve, or would they resort to violence to prevent this? And who would they immediately start violently robbing? Bringing up the examples of South American countries or South Africa where theres extreme income inequality, and a sky high violent crime rate as a result, usually makes right wing people at least admit the cost of some decent level of welfare is worth it to keep themselves and their property safe.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Blut posted:Every time I've gotten into a debate with a right winger who hates the idea of welfare about the subject I never try to appeal to their humanitarian side any more (because it doesn't exist). Instead I ask what they think that 5-10% of the population that is currently living on welfare would do if they couldn't afford food? Would they just let their children starve, or would they resort to violence to prevent this? And who would they immediately start violently robbing? They know this though. It's why they keep bringing up immigrants as the cause of their misfortune, that way they can focus their rage against immigrants instead of the rich.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/spignal/status/862692376673832960 Well, that's quite something.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/spignal/status/862692376673832960 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeLpkCZkWfc This guy? I mean, I respect him, but do you really want someone who seriously wears cravats these days?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeLpkCZkWfc This guy? I mean, I respect him, but do you really want someone who seriously wears cravats these days? 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeLpkCZkWfc This guy? I mean, I respect him, but do you really want someone who seriously wears cravats these days? holy poo poo that dude owns
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Oh great, another circlejerk about shorter workdays by permastudents who transform into business experts when this issue comes up (10% increase in labor costs? No biggie, I saw an income statement once!). I loved when the media was reporting on Sweden apparently moving to a 6 hour work day, which ended up meaning one experiment at a hospital (that turned out to be too costly: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...e-a7508581.html) and some plants. Maybe there'll be a day when 6 hours is the most efficient work day, but it's clearly not today. Hmm yes, that study that showed nurses that worked 6 hours a day were happier, healthier and just as productive. It just costs a bit more in the short term, but if it were to run longer it most likely recouped it costs because of lower healthcare costs, as reported by noted anti-capitalist site Bloomberg. But welp, it benefits workers so of course you present the version of events that suit your worldview where nothing that is good for workers is possible.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
I gotta be honest and say a 35 hour workweek isn't a great idea. Since the introduction of the 40 hour workweek we've had massive productivity gains through huge increases of average education level, the introduction of computers and the internet and robotics. A demand for a 20 hour workweek is much more reasonable.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Villani is an okay guy and his style owns. But from what little I've heard of his political ideas, they're... I dunno, not very developed?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
I honestly don't give a poo poo about how businesses do as long as public services function and there's healthcare and food.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:17
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:Hmm yes, that study that showed nurses that worked 6 hours a day were happier, healthier and just as productive. It just costs a bit more in the short term, but if it were to run longer it most likely recouped it costs because of lower healthcare costs, as reported by noted anti-capitalist site Bloomberg. But if they are more productive, wouldn't that mean jobs would actually be lost be reducing the workday? It's also important to keep in mind that nurses have a particularly physically demanding job, so the benefits in other sectors are probably a lot smaller. Additionally the report you cited did not state that the productivity gain would be enough to offset a 25% reduction in worktime. Not to mention that certain western countries are already running into labor shortages, a situation that would be markedly worse if they reduced worktime.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I honestly don't give a poo poo about how businesses do as long as public services function and there's healthcare and food. This. The economy exists to support the general population, not the other way around. Therefore, we should siphon as much money out of businesses into the pockets of people (or into investments in infrastructure and education and stuff) as is reasonably practical without totally breaking the economy, i.e. we should treat them like any other resource we want to exploit sustainably.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:25
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Six hour workdays might not be the best idea, but there's no point in working more than eight hours even from a productivity standpoint. I approve of governments cracking down on the scourge of unpaid overtime.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
I'd accept big macroeconomic losses if it means good hospitals, trains, affordable housing, food and a sufficient basic income for all, even if it leaves no room for excesses like electronics and personal cars..
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:28
|
|
blowfish posted:This. The economy exists to support the general population, not the other way around. Therefore, we should siphon as much money out of businesses into the pockets of people (or into investments in infrastructure and education and stuff) as is reasonably practical without totally breaking the economy, i.e. we should treat them like any other resource we want to exploit sustainably. You are aware that businesses are not autonomous and are owned by people, who you would siphon money away from? Shibawanko posted:I'd accept big macroeconomic losses if it means good hospitals, trains, affordable housing, food and a sufficient basic income for all, even if it leaves no room for excesses like electronics and personal cars.. So basically Germany in 2017?
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:You are aware that businesses are not autonomous and are owned by people, who you would siphon money away from? Corporations aren't people, no matter how hard those libertarians want them to be.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:i can see shortened working days being real good in a healthcare setting, they tried it already Why would you test the 6-hour working day in the healthcare sector of all places, where labour spend is the largest chunk of operating expenses (50%+ compared to 10-30% elsewhere), where there are severe labour shortages, and where long working hours are dictated by factors other than profit (i.e. information continuity)? If anything, healthcare would be a significant argument against a 30-hour workweek, any reform towards it would probably have to provide for some large-scale exceptions for the sector. Test it in retail for example, and then see what happens. I mean you Swedes even have a government-owned chain of stores ripe for experimentation ffs LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/spignal/status/862692376673832960 GaussianCopula posted:Well, I would refer you to a certain Macron, who is president-elect and former Minister of Economy of France, whose analysis, shared by much of the mainstream press and academia points towards the fact that the French indeed do not get enough for their taxes. 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:The hell? because tired doctors kill people
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:But if they are more productive, wouldn't that mean jobs would actually be lost be reducing the workday? It's also important to keep in mind that nurses have a particularly physically demanding job, so the benefits in other sectors are probably a lot smaller. Additionally the report you cited did not state that the productivity gain would be enough to offset a 25% reduction in worktime. Then all they have to do is remove those silly barriers to immigration and tada problem solved Immigration is good: it can help make a 25 hour workweek possible.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:32
|
|
Truga posted:Corporations aren't people, no matter how hard those libertarians want them to be. Corporations are owned by people and you would take away the money from those people. Flowers For Algeria posted:Then all they have to do is remove those silly barriers to immigration and tada problem solved There are no legal limits on immigration in the EU, still certain countries have very high unemployment while others have labor shortages - why is that?
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:You are aware that businesses are not autonomous and are owned by people, who you would siphon money away from? Anywhere you find that money accumulates without being spent on vaguely useful things in a reasonable timeframe. E.g. any profits that go straight into executive compensation packages or just sit in the bank instead of being reinvested into the company.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Corporations are owned by people and you would take away the money from those people. Absolute monarchies were basically countries owned by people yet nobody reasonable had much qualms taking their poo poo away.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Absolute monarchies were basically countries owned by people yet nobody reasonable had much qualms taking their poo poo away. Marginal value: a concept so hard, no temporarily embarrassed millionaire could possibly understand it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Corporations are owned by people and you would take away the money from those people. Because instead of investing money on education for immigrants and subsidizing their access to the workforce and spending to drive public demand up, states tend to spend money on impoverishing immigrants, chasing them out, and so on?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:38
|
|
blowfish posted:Anywhere you find that money accumulates without being spent on vaguely useful things in a reasonable timeframe. E.g. any profits that go straight into executive compensation packages or just sit in the bank instead of being reinvested into the company. There is very little money that just sits around and does nothing (the exception being oversea profits of companies like Apple, which for tax reasons can't be repatriated - that would be an area where something needs to be done) - rather the money is reinvested either by the company itself or by the private individual who got it as compensation for their services. I really don't get why people always focus on redistributing wealth instead of simply creating more of it. The economy is not a zero sum game.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:There is very little money that just sits around and does nothing (the exception being oversea profits of companies like Apple, which for tax reasons can't be repatriated - that would be an area where something needs to be done) - rather the money is reinvested either by the company itself or by the private individual who got it as compensation for their services. Because being insanely rich like the 1% while people die in the streets is fundamentally immoral
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
A well-functioning market economy is what will allow you to sustain the former. I don't know how some people still haven't learned this lesson in the 21st century, after the complete failure of any sort of communist system ever attempted. The latest attempt in Venezuela is failing spectacularly right now. 'Wealth' is not a static given or manna floating in the air that you can just go siphon off and redistribute however you please without it having any effect. It's something intangible continually produced through the interaction of countless actors and institutions, motivated by specific attitudes, within the cultural and technological context of a specific society. Private property and a capitalist economy play an important role in that process, the government's role is to set the limits and to make sure the created wealth benefits society as a whole. e: that was in reply to Shibawanko, goddamn this thread is moving fast
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:There is very little money that just sits around and does nothing This is true, most money needs to keep moving around the loving world a lot before it ends up in some large corp's or a CEO's account in a tax haven. The fix is still guillotine.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:59 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Because being insanely rich like the 1% while people die in the streets is fundamentally immoral Where exactly do "people die in the streets" in the EU? I must have missed that.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 08:45
|
|