Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Common consensus amongst my peers is that America is a third world country that just happens to also harbor lots of obscenely wealthy people.

[Strife26]

Africa: No.

[sonerohi]

I can't imagine an actual divide in the U.S.A., but I could see a genocide against politicians.

[Truean]

Yup, used to be one parent worked, and the other stayed home and that one breadwinner supported the entire family. Never talked about health care, because it wasn't a problem; old people didn't eat cat food. That breadwinner, rarely had more than a high school education. By comparison today, he didn't compete for a job, he walked into a factory.... There were no outsourced jobs to China. We never talked about cutting anyone's benefits. The Rich actually paid taxes. Corporations did too. College didn't cost a fortune. Now? Meh.

NOTE: This is not a commentary on Gender Roles, but rather pointing out that it used to be you could support the entire family on ONE income with a high school education and now you can barely do it on TWO with education if you can even afford that....

[sonerohi]

True that Truean. It used to be that the employees got their wages and benefits, and all the leftovers went to the business. Now, the business gets its cut, and the employees get to scavenge the remains.

[SalmonGod]

Corporations exist to generate profit.  Money that goes to employees is considered operational costs.  In other words, profit isn't for employees.  In order to increase profits, which corporations are designed to strive for at all times, they must either increase the revenue generated by employees relative to the cost of employing them, or they must decrease employment costs while maintaining their revenue generation.  It's pretty damn broken.

[Africa]

The South doesn't want to secede from the Union, despite what some people usually think.

I don't think they do either, and they probably won't within 100 years, but if I had to pick a most-likely-to-secede, it would be the ex-Confederacy.

@SalmonGod: Huh? As in, we're a third world country but there's a small population of obscenely wealthy people? Or as in, we're a third world country but most of the population is comparatively obscenely wealthy? Because our poor people ARE obscenely wealthy by world standards, but I'm not sure where the third world country comes in.

[SalmonGod]

@SalmonGod: Huh? As in, we're a third world country but there's a small population of obscenely wealthy people? Or as in, we're a third world country but most of the population is comparatively obscenely wealthy? Because our poor people ARE obscenely wealthy by world standards, but I'm not sure where the third world country comes in.

Then how come most of the young adults I know with college degrees are struggling to find employment that they can more than scrape by on, or have mostly given up and just live with their parents?

Most of them have various cheap gadgets that they accumulate over time and grant the appearance of not being dirt poor, but then many of those are commonly gifts from their elders who got financially established when there was more opportunity, and even if all their irresponsible expenditures over time were combined, would not amount to much against real expenses such as a mortgage.

Could just be where I live, just outside of Indianapolis... which looks luxurious compared to the rural life if you drive out just half an hour, where you can find small towns that really do look like they're in a third world country.

[Truean]

Corporations exist to generate profit.  Money that goes to employees is considered operational costs.  In other words, profit isn't for employees.  In order to increase profits, which corporations are designed to strive for at all times, they must either increase the revenue generated by employees relative to the cost of employing them, or they must decrease employment costs while maintaining their revenue generation.  It's pretty damn broken.

Yeah, this is called people, even and especially most Economists, not getting it. There's kind of a "no shit," feeling when people say "corporations exist to generate profits." Its so blatantly obvious that no one is disputing it. Pointing it out is kind of without purpose given that everyone knows it. Rather, we're saying the point is being missed and you are wasting effort focusing on the totally obvious instead of said point.

People and businesses fail to grasp the cyclical nature of business. Every business loves "customers" and more accurately their payments. Those same businesses want to keep their "employment" costs low. The great big joke of a point they are missing is that the employees ARE customers. Even if they aren't directly, they are indirectly, because they are the customers of the business' customers who in turn enable the business' customers to pay.... Did you catch that? In short, employees are your customer's customers, without whom your customers can't afford to pay you.... I don't buy a damn thing from my boss, but somewhere in the mix, I buy something from someone who pays him....

Fishermen exist to catch fish, but if they overfish, they won't have any in the future. Similarly, if corporations don't pay anyone anything, then they will kill off the customer pool, because no one will be able to afford anything then.

Henry Ford Understood this, which is why he intentionally lowered the price of his automobiles to make them affordable to as many people as he could. His Shareholders hated him for it and won the lawsuit over it. The shareholders were short sighted, greedy idiots. Mr. Ford wanted a garage on every home, one of his cars in every garage, and one of everyone's wallets feeding him tons of money.... Mr. Ford realized that while the "automatory machinery" (old timely, crappy automation machines) did save him labor costs, THEY SIMPLY DIDN'T BUY ANY OF HIS CARS.... It's called cultivating customers, and we've forgotten it.

Summation, No one makes any money, no one can afford to buy anything, no customers for businesses, no money for businesses. So paying your employees nothing isn't as great an idea as it sounds, because it comes back to bite you.... Kinda like its doing now....

[Criptfeind]

Yet another no shit moment.

[Truean]

Yet another no shit moment.

Today many corporations don't follow what I just said. It's "hurray for me and to hell with you;" I'm charging you as much as I possibly can for the crappiest product I can pawn off on you, attitude. Let's all automate, outsource, and downsize....

[Criptfeind]

The thing is, there is a diminishing return. Spending one less dollar does not mean you will make one less dollar.

Also, the thing is, that whole 'corporations are out to screw you' sounds really bad until you realize that individual people do the exact same thing, only on a smaller scale.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at (plus some, but that would be getting too much into my political perspective for this thread).  Most people I know don't get the broader perspective there.

[Truean]

The thing is, there is a diminishing return. Spending one less dollar does not mean you will make one less dollar.

Also, the thing is, that whole 'corporations are out to screw you' sounds really bad until you realize that individual people do the exact same thing, only on a smaller scale.

Yes and no, it depends on specifically how much is spent on what and what the RETURN ON INVESTMENT is. The notion of "Spending" as a generic thing is laughable. What did you buy and what will that thing do for you?

Sometimes there are diminishing returns. Other times, the Return on investment is so much that you do loose out and actually loose more than $1 by not spending that dollar. It involves also looking at what your other options are (opportunity costs).

Simply, it isn't so simple.

[Criptfeind]

Then whats your issue man?