|
P-Mack posted:Solution: Double Scrooge's taxes and provide universal basic income to all. 
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Thank you, Mundrial Mantis! This might be a good place to ask; for similar reasons of wanting to refute libertarians and seeking good rhetoric for doing so, I'm trying to find something fairly obscure: I'm trying to track down an inaugural speech from Herbert Lehman, governor of New York, from 1939. It's referenced in this political cartoon:  The reasons why the speech could be useful are probably self-evident, but yes, Lehman is one of the OG Lehman Brothers. I've had no luck identifying what archive might hold it. At some point it may be productive to go into the details of how to refute Lockean property rights perspecitves, since I just recently had an infuriating encounter with someone who had those as a part of their muddled, minarchist/voluntarist beliefs. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Example: Scrooge McDuck owns 10 McDonald's franchises, 9 of which are profitable but the tenth barely breaks even. If the wage goes up, he will pay the workers at the first 9 the higher wage, but close down the tenth. In that case the franchise is basically already doomed because any other economic shock is going to hit it just the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:At some point it may be productive to go into the details of how to refute Lockean property rights perspecitves, since I just recently had an infuriating encounter with someone who had those as a part of their muddled, minarchist/voluntarist beliefs. The first big angle to go after Lockean property rights is the one suggested by Locke himself: The Lockean Proviso posted:Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same. The legitimacy of the proviso was shaky enough in Locke's day, when there were ~575 million people on the planet. It was bound to get shaky in an era of exponential population growth on a roughly fixed amount of land. Nowadays there's thirteen times as many people, and there is not thirteen times as much land. And even if there were "enough and as good" left for other people after the current property is all bought up, those landless souls need to get to the new land first. Good luck buying the plane ticket and the supplies to tame the wilds if you have trouble scrounging up the money for your bus pass! The second is to look at the actual history behind how property works. Locke's concept of original appropriation and exchange is something he made up in his head in the Seventeenth Century. People had been settling on and improving land for literal millennia before that. Did they do so through a series of voluntary exchanges and bequethals? Of course not, they took whatever they could get away with, with the aid of state violence where possible, and they continued to do this in Locke's time and on until the present day. And once that chain of legitimate transfer of property rights is broken, and a "legitimate owner" can't be identified to return property to, the whole Lockean conception breaks down entirely. To focus on some relevant examples of this happening, the conception of property rights Locke is defending was basically invented to justify the enclosure movement, where "common land" that was effectively owned by everyone was fenced off by one person who declared it theirs, and the people who lived and worked on that land were evicted and forced into migration. During Locke's day itself, of course, we have the colonization of the New World, where Europeans essentially declared that Locke's conception of property rights didn't apply to Native Americans. So we're left with situations where the unknown descendants of the peasants-turned-proletarians of the enclosure period are the "true" owners of large swathes of English land, and where entire regions of North America are being squatted on without paying rent to their nearly or entirely extinct owners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
I find it entertainingly ironic that his conception of the morality of land grabbing only applies in the instance that land is an infinite resource. Might explain why libertarians have such a difficult relationship with the concept of free stuff and infinite supply 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
 King of the labels, this oneAnyway, I guess Minecraft libertarianism doesn't even work as a label anymore because even Minecraft has finite land per instance
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I find it entertainingly ironic that his conception of the morality of land grabbing only applies in the instance that land is an infinite resource. As the wikipedia article points out, the Lockean Proviso didn't get its name until Nozick wrote about it, and agreed with it, in 1975. Just go homestead some land on the frontier, in the loving seventies!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:In that case the franchise is basically already doomed because any other economic shock is going to hit it just the same. I think this approach comes across very clearly as a sort of No True Scotsman, i.e. "well those jobs would be lost but they don't really count", and it's not going to sway many opinions. It's probably better to ask what the social utility is of a job that doesn't pay enough for someone to live on, because it's going to eventually reduce to your interlocutor believing that people who don't work at a suitably prestigious job deserve to die or live in misery, and I prefer to believe that most people are non-sociopathic enough to not want to hold that belief. e: Alternately it could reduce to an argument about the moral value of work, which then leads to the obvious question "why do we need to legally enforce this morality on the poor but not the wealthy?" Mornacale fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
The better reply (than "but what about some other shock?") is probably that while the introduction of a higher minimum wage might cause some marginal layoffs in the short run, in the long run workers making more money will grow the economy and result in lost jobs being made up for. Which also has its own issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Even describing a minimum wage increase as a "shock" is laughable since generally they're phased in over years and if a business can't handle that then yeah I wouldn't be surprised if any dumb thing could bring it crashing down. In the past I might have said something here about "no one advocating a drastic wage hike overnight" but gently caress that it's been forever since it's been raised. $15, tomorrow. Workers that get fired or laid off or whatever euphemism don't get years to "adjust" and have been bearing the weight of all this bullshit forever. e: Mornacale posted:It's probably better to ask what the social utility is of a job that doesn't pay enough for someone to live on, because it's going to eventually reduce to your interlocutor believing that people who don't work at a suitably prestigious job deserve to die or live in misery, and I prefer to believe that most people are non-sociopathic enough to not want to hold that belief. The mere concept of a "living wage" seems to be met with something between blank stares and just shouting "COMMUNIST". Or then there's people who think it's the worst idea ever because jobs that don't pay enough to live on are necessary for teenagers or some other nonsense. Polygynous fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Most anti-minimum/living wage arguments are fabricated bullshit created by rich pricks that think their profit margins aren't big enough. These are people that are never satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
So just to confirm if I have this right re: business taxes. Say there's a CEO who runs a company that makes $250k in profits in one year. And say the top marginal tax rate is 40% for $250k and above and it's say, 10% for everything below $250k. There are say, 10 employees at this company. Now tax season rolls around and so the CEO has two choices he can make. 1) He either keeps the $250k in profits for himself OR 2) he redistributes that $250k to his employees. If I'm understanding this correct, if he chooses option 1), he gets charged at the marginal rate of 40% for every dollar (yeah, I know that's not how marginal rates work, but just for the sake of argument). But if he chooses option 2), he does NOT get charged the 40% tax rate. So basically, the top tax rate, whatever that may be, is more or less irrelevant to the employees, as they wouldn't be effected by it. Is this basically how things work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Is this basically how things work? Ignoring the thousands of loopholes corporate tax attorneys get paid to exploit... no, probably not even then. Well, the tax rates being irrelevant is probably right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Libertarianism and to a lesser extent conservatism are anti-fact ideologies
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I think this approach comes across very clearly as a sort of No True Scotsman, i.e. "well those jobs would be lost but they don't really count", and it's not going to sway many opinions. It's probably better to ask what the social utility is of a job that doesn't pay enough for someone to live on, because it's going to eventually reduce to your interlocutor believing that people who don't work at a suitably prestigious job deserve to die or live in misery, and I prefer to believe that most people are non-sociopathic enough to not want to hold that belief. Nah, I prefer the argument that more people are going to benefit than be punished. Utilitarianism! Simply put: The minimum wage will make some jobs unviable, but also raise the incomes of far more workers. In Ontario 29.4 percent of workers in 2014 were below the minimum wage hike, based on estimates the hike will cost anywhere from 30k to 100k jobs. (No one actually knows) No matter how you look at the math more people are benefiting from the hikes. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/low-wage-work-skyrocketing-ontario-study If there isn't enough surplus value in someone's hourly labour to make it to 14$ an hour then the position probably shouldn't exist anyways. Why should a job not cover a person's needs? (yeah it is Canada, our safety net isn't as good as much of Europe but it is decent depending where you live.) This argument is too nuanced: If you are going to tackle income inequality that has been the structural trend in the west for the last few decades (largely a consequence of technology an automation) you're going to need to make policy to alleviate that or society is going to suck. Libertarians however are a useless bunch an really cannot be reasoned with while they are 'in their fountain head phase' / 'permanently incapable of seeing humans as complex individuals'
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
Grammar-Bolshevik posted:In Ontario 29.4 percent of workers in 2014 were below the minimum wage hike, based on estimates the hike will cost anywhere from 30k to 100k jobs. (No one actually knows) No matter how you look at the math more people are benefiting from the hikes. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/low-wage-work-skyrocketing-ontario-study
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 12:03
|
|
|
Grammar-Bolshevik posted:Simply put: The minimum wage will make some jobs unviable, but also raise the incomes of far more workers. (I don't agree with it. Those jobs suck to begin with, plus there should be a safety net so that anyone pushed out by a minwage increase has time to find another job without starving to death. But that's what people will say.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:The problem there is that someone who loses a job loses far utility than someone who gets a 33% raise gains, to the point where you might end up with society as a whole being worse off even if it's far fewer people losing jobs than getting raises. This is the same argument against free trade, since a few workers are really negatively affected and everyone else gets small gains. That is a fair point to make, and if you encounter that counter argument highlight the need for that minority to be provided for an reskilled for the coming economy. DACK FAYDEN posted:(I don't agree with it. Those jobs suck to begin with, plus there should be a safety net so that anyone pushed out by a minwage increase has time to find another job without starving to death. But that's what people will say.) If a person making these arguments persists to imagine that the jobs that are "destroyed" or are a permanent loss of utility, you're probably dealing with someone that cannot be reached as they have some serious lapses in empathy or ideology in the way. Grammar-Bolshevik fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
I mean they might also just be practically arguing that they aren't going to come back and retraining won't be provided, which is generally true. The argument is somewhat accelerationist in that it assumes that the need for a solution will result in one being provided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean they might also just be practically arguing that they aren't going to come back and retraining won't be provided, which is generally true. The argument is somewhat accelerationist in that it assumes that the need for a solution will result in one being provided. "** for that minority to be provided for an reskilled for the coming economy. **" in order of significance. Grammar-Bolshevik fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Yes I gather that, my point is that you may be arguing with somebody who understandably believes that won't happen and thus prefers the meager provisions of a shite job over nothing at all. If you're advocating for the view that automation is inevitable it's not exactly surprising that the people you're talking to assume it will happen in the worst possible way and that that is also inevitable, and that their stance therefore is simply to dig their heels in and delay it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
You might also be arguing with someone who is not a utilitarian, or who has a radically different idea of what constitutes utility, or who will counter your argument of "more people helped than hurt" by saying that whatever 10 cent price increase they have to eat affects still more people, or... Also, frankly, I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone seriously prefers a minimum wage increase because they've sat down and mathed out the marginal utility of the policy based on an explicit function of the utility of a job at X wage, so I don't understand why you'd try to argue it from a strict utilitarian perspective rather than the much more resonant position that people deserve to live decent lives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Yeah I can't see that being a utilitarian decision as much as a gut feeling value judgement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Sebastian_JKT/status/950811320785481728
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Sebastian_JKT/status/950826459756679168 wew lad
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
Let's abolish the minimum wage But in exchange we have to set up a UBI set to the living wage of each region
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:
Other than perhaps 'enlightened self interest' I think it would be hard to demonstrate a more pervasive ethical theory (utilitarianism) that most people could connect with. Mornacale posted:
Mornacale posted:
??? Mornacale posted:
That is not at all what I am suggesting, your summary is needlessly complex an doesn't really reflect what I said. "more people's income will benefit from a wage hike in ontario than are expected to lose jobs by a significant margin'' boom, is this going to change every mind on earth? nah, but it is low effort an factually accurate in the case of Ontario. Are people going to be able to claim a bunch of unprovable stuff like hypothetically predicting rents will go up or consumer goods? Of course because there is no way to stop someone from claiming things that are not true or impossible to prove for either party. OwlFancier posted:If you're advocating for the view that automation is inevitable it's not exactly surprising that the people you're talking to assume it will happen in the worst possible way and that that is also inevitable, and that their stance therefore is simply to dig their heels in and delay it. My facebook recently featured this hot take of steaming Canadian garbage : https://imgur.com/a/njZsa "Exactly what these Communist Liberals want. Replace low income people with robots so these people have to depend primarily on government. The more people depend on government the more powerful politicians become. Liberals have openly shown admiration for communist dictators, pretty simple to figure out what these scum bags are up to." If someone is going to go down the 'technological reactionarism' route you can probably only really change their mind by removing their grandiose pessimism. Regardless the 'lets circle the drain slower' argument would be one I don't spend time on arguing against because technological reactionary right an left types are often pretty bad at understanding technology to begin with; an I would throw them in the 'ideology barrier' category. Grammar-Bolshevik fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
Socialism would solve this problem, yes. Good on him for calling for socialism!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/VeteranShill/status/950833908698046464
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
imnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotownedimnotowned
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
jrode on twitter??
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
 band
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
I don't believe the black guy is real, he's one of those computer generated people from japan. Because the alternative is that four white 20something ancaps managed to be around a black guy for long enough to form a band without trying to sell him or going on at length about their racial science theories, and that's preposterous. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't believe the black guy is real, he's one of those computer generated people from japan. The picture is literally an example of them trying to monetize his blackness edit: this was an even dumber post after you edited yours
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Yeah it wasn't initially clear but... actually yeah that's also true which makes it even funnier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Bad news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_July eta: quote:July also states that his Christian religious views spurred his anarchist politics, stating, "Who nailed Jesus to the cross? The state!" My strong Christian beliefs tell me that it's important that the only way to prevent Jesus from dying and thus resurrecting and saving all our souls would have been to never form a state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Bad news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_July quote:July, along with his friend Bab, became interested in viewpoints outside of the left wing political ideology that they believed African-Americans are "pigeonholed" into, and Bab introduced July to the writings of African-American economist Thomas Sowell.[5] July became enamored with the works of Sowell and another African-American economist, Walter Williams.[1][5] On the one hand, I mean, yes fair enough I get hating the US government because of that, but on the other hand I'm not sure I super understand adopting the political ideology that advocates owning people instead... Like surely you should end up ancom or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
quote:July's lyrics for BackWordz' "Utopias Don't Exist" criticize Black Lives Matter and blames black-on-black crime for police brutality.[1] July explained his criticism to Reason, stating, "It's not a movement I would align myself with, mainly because of the collectivist aspect. To be fair, Black Lives Matter is not as centralized as most people like to think. It became more of a slogan. Most of the people that are hashtagging it and shouting it don't have anything to do with any chapter of this organization." good lord
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Thank you, Mundrial Mantis! You're welcome! I will make notes of interesting points as I finish the book and post them here. lol check the revision history. I love it when someone finds a detailed page that is obviously a pet project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Bad news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_July Hmm...yes, human on human violence only began after states and nations were invented. Before people organized it was all complete and total harmony among all people and nobody harmed, maimed, killed, or stole from anybody else. IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:42
|
|