Print

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

[SalmonGod]

Now, the corporations don't give a shit and will either: a.) Take a payday for stockholders, or b.) hire, but only in the 3rd world due to globalization. It's a cost benefit scenario. Despite American Workers being rather productive, the company can hire 20 workers in the third world, not have to worry about health, worker safety or environmental regulations, and whip their workers with a rubber hose if they feel like it.

+ Free trade agreements disguised as aid for poor countries to make it that much more attractive

[Lagslayer]

Now, the corporations don't give a shit and will either: a.) Take a payday for stockholders, or b.) hire, but only in the 3rd world due to globalization. It's a cost benefit scenario. Despite American Workers being rather productive, the company can hire 20 workers in the third world, not have to worry about health, worker safety or environmental regulations, and whip their workers with a rubber hose if they feel like it.

+ Free trade agreements disguised as aid for poor countries to make it that much more attractive

If companies are going to be allowed to compete, then labor must be allowed to compete as well. If it's cheaper to harvest our resources, pay to ship them to china, pay their taxes and workers, and then pay to have it shipped back then it is to just do it over here in the first place, then there is a serious problem with the cost of labor on this side. Shipping is very expensive.

[Putnam]

Now, the corporations don't give a shit and will either: a.) Take a payday for stockholders, or b.) hire, but only in the 3rd world due to globalization. It's a cost benefit scenario. Despite American Workers being rather productive, the company can hire 20 workers in the third world, not have to worry about health, worker safety or environmental regulations, and whip their workers with a rubber hose if they feel like it.

+ Free trade agreements disguised as aid for poor countries to make it that much more attractive

If companies are going to be allowed to compete, then labor must be allowed to compete as well. If it's cheaper to harvest our resources, pay to ship them to china, pay their taxes and workers, and then pay to have it shipped back then it is to just do it over here in the first place, then there is a serious problem with the cost of labor on this side. Shipping is very expensive.

There's a serious problem with the cost on this side--or there's a serious problem on the other side.

[Nadaka]

Yea, silly americans wantng to work less than 100 hours a week in a toxic and potentially lethal environment from the age of 5 to death and expecting enough pay that their 1 allowed childs growth isn't stunted by malnutrition and forced labor.

[Lagslayer]

Now, the corporations don't give a shit and will either: a.) Take a payday for stockholders, or b.) hire, but only in the 3rd world due to globalization. It's a cost benefit scenario. Despite American Workers being rather productive, the company can hire 20 workers in the third world, not have to worry about health, worker safety or environmental regulations, and whip their workers with a rubber hose if they feel like it.

+ Free trade agreements disguised as aid for poor countries to make it that much more attractive

If companies are going to be allowed to compete, then labor must be allowed to compete as well. If it's cheaper to harvest our resources, pay to ship them to china, pay their taxes and workers, and then pay to have it shipped back then it is to just do it over here in the first place, then there is a serious problem with the cost of labor on this side. Shipping is very expensive.

There's a serious problem with the cost on this side--or there's a serious problem on the other side.

In this case, it's both. The Chinese government is run by assholes, sure. They manipulate their currency and have a government enforced monopoly on everything they do. However, there is no denying the problems with labor costs in the US as well. You can't ask for $60 and hour for barely skilled manufacturing labor with ridiculously huge benefits and not expect to be undercut.

Yea, silly americans wantng to work less than 100 hours a week in a toxic and potentially lethal environment from the age of 5 to death and expecting enough pay that their 1 allowed childs growth isn't stunted by malnutrition and forced labor.

I'm confident we won't need to go anywhere near that far. The US still manufactures more goods than any other country, even China, but we also consume a lot more. And now there's this mentality that we are somehow "above" menial labor. Every society needs menial labor workers. They are the manufacturers, the cleaners, the cashiers, and anything on the low end of the pay scale by definition. It utilizes the skills pretty much anyone has. If suddenly everyone was a doctor, then doctor would become the new menial labor because everyone can do it. Kicking the ball further down the field won't make it go away.

[kaijyuu]

There's a serious problem with the cost on this side--or there's a serious problem on the other side.

Both?


If every single person in the entire world earned the same amount of wealth in a year, it'd be roughly $10,000 USD. You can take from that that western society is, as a whole, friggin' rich, and/or you can take from it that most of the world is dirt poor. That $10,000 figure is the mean; the median is closer to $2000. Something tells me the bigger problem is most the world is dirt poor.
(figures may be off; I'm going from memory from a statistic from I believe 2009. Someone can googlefu up more accurate and up to date figures if they want)

With less global economic disparity, stuff like outsourcing wouldn't even be a thing. I can't begin to fathom what it would take to bring most the world up to western levels of wealth (not to mention how to do it without nuking the environment), but that's what it would take to truly "fix" outsourcing and losing jobs overseas. Companies aren't bound to specific countries; they are global.

And now there's this mentality that we are somehow "above" menial labor. Every society needs menial labor workers. They are the manufacturers, the cleaners, the cashiers, and anything on the low end of the pay scale by definition. It utilizes the skills pretty much anyone has. If suddenly everyone was a doctor, then doctor would become the new menial labor because everyone can do it. Kicking the ball further down the field won't make it go away.

To fix this, you need to fix the "low end of the pay scale" problem. People are "above" menial labor because it barely brings them above poverty (if that! Minimum wage won't keep you out of poverty), not because it's physical or whatever. There are plenty of boring, or physical, or excruciating, or whatever jobs out there that people are happy to take solely because of the high paycheck.

I don't care if you clean toilets, you should get a decent income from it. Then people will be taking up these jobs without complaint.

[Lagslayer]

@ Kaijyuu

Supply and demand applies to jobs as well. Also, inflation. Raising the minimum wage won't accomplish much because the increased inflation will largely or completely cancel it out. Unless we get some super utopian socialistic society, there are always going to be people just trying to scrape by.

I would reccommend doing something splitting like the rent with more people instead of just trying to pay for it all yourself. It would prevent another housing bubble, which started the whole downward spiral. It's not like the building can't accomodate more people, even if it would be inconvenient. Everyone gets a roof over their heads for a lot less money and it only costs a little space. Split the big bills with someone else who's willing, and just share it. It's like socialism, except everyone involved consents to it.

[Truean]

@ Kaijyuu

Supply and demand applies to jobs as well. Also, inflation. Raising the minimum wage won't accomplish much because the increased inflation will largely or completely cancel it out. Unless we get some super utopian socialistic society, there are always going to be people just trying to scrape by.

I would reccommend doing something splitting like the rent with more people instead of just trying to pay for it all yourself. It would prevent another housing bubble, which started the whole downward spiral. It's not like the building can't accomodate more people, even if it would be inconvenient. Everyone gets a roof over their heads for a lot less money and it only costs a little space. Split the big bills with someone else who's willing, and just share it. It's like socialism, except everyone involved consents to it.

Uh huih.... So do with less?  And what about the people and companies who make the things people would be purchasing less exactly? "Tighten the belt," "buy less widgets," sounds great until you realize there are tons of people who work making those widgets. Same goes for housing. Same goes for everything....

Feedback Loop! For the loss.

It doesn't work in practice, and people should know that.

[kaijyuu]

@ Kaijyuu

Supply and demand applies to jobs as well. Also, inflation. Raising the minimum wage won't accomplish much because the increased inflation will largely or completely cancel it out. Unless we get some super utopian socialistic society, there are always going to be people just trying to scrape by.

I refuse to believe it's impossible. After all, We got kinda close in 1968.

Re: Inflation. That will only happen if these dollars are magically appearing from nowhere. "Print more money" doesn't solve anything, but that doesn't happen with a minimum wage increase. (A good point of contention, however, is whether companies will actually fork over the larger paycheck or do their best to reduce the number of employees they have. It's a bit of both and raising the minimum wage definitely isn't a fix all, if a fix anything. I haven't heard of of a minimum wage increase being one of Occupy's general demands, and for probably good reason.)

The real goal to shoot for is redistribution of wealth (duh, that's the point of occupy), which will ultimately mean more money in the hands of the guy cleaning toilets whether there's a minimum wage increase or not. Redistribution of wealth will put more money in the poor person's hands without devaluing the dollar because it's taking it out of the hands of the rich; it becomes a zero sum scheme (no change in total dollars out there, just who owns them). Some fancy economist could relate the full consequences of that; I know enough that it'll give the average consumer more purchasing power (good for economy) and make extremely large corporations less able to make large investments (bad for economy).


On a final note, a bit of wacky philosophy: You say there's always going to be people "just trying to scrape by." The thing is, you can't have poor without rich, or rich without poor. It's a comparison, not an objective measurement. The more rich people we have, the more poor we have, and there's obviously exponentially more poor than rich.

How many are poor because of luck/circumstance, and how many have their situation engineered so someone else can be rich? When employers pay their employees as little as possible so they can live in a mansion while their employees live in a shack, are we going to blame the employees for their situation? You may call that exaggeration, but that's exactly what happened in the US during the gilded age... the only point in US history where the economic disparity has been as bad as it is today.

[alway]

Fact of the matter is, corporations have huge quantities of capital right now, but have no reason to hire more as they can't sell what they are already making due to no one else having any money to spend on buying more of their product.

And that's not even taking into account the mechanization and automation which, within the next few decades, will probably render a very large number of those jobs nonexistent. Instead of the old industrial era model capitalism equation of capital + labor = product, we are moving towards an era of capital = product with minimal or no labor requirements. Hell, just look at the 1 million jobs FoxConn is replacing with robots. It's an era in which mass production can occur on a scale never before seen... But with our current system, it leads to a small, incredibly rich upper class and a large population facing chronic poverty.

[Lagslayer]

I'm trying to avoid huge quote pyramids, so bare with me.

@ Truean

Because we really need all these houses, right? Because if we don't keep subsidizing all these housing projects, we might not have enough houses, right? Because someone making 20k a year should be able to buy a 250k house whenever they want, right? Because houses aren't meant to last, right? Because any building that's 20 years old needs to be torn down and rebuilt, right? Because every single person in America should live in a suburban neighborhood with a 250k house on 2 acres of land, right? Yeah, not realistic.

The job market needs restructuring, I'm not going to argue that point. We can only use so much infrastructure, and such jobs should be in lower demand, but it has been artificially inflated. Making "stuff" and gathering resources should be where the jobs are concentrated, but it's not. Labor laws hamper the first group and labor/environmental laws hamper the second. People would have more reliable jobs and prices for the "stuff" would be lower because of increased supply and not having to ship it from overseas. We have massive, MASSIVE resources of all kinds, but we aren't tapping them.



@Kaijyuu
If everyone has the same amount of money, then they will buy a lot more of the same stuff. If suddenly everyone is making 75k a year, prices for everything are going to soar because they are all in the same income bracket, hence inflation. It doesn't mesh well with a free market economy. I don't trust the government to regulate this any more than the businesses (even less because the government is also more inefficient). In theory, they could be removed from power by the voters, but that hasn't worked either. The latter problem needs to be addressed before the first, and it needs to work reliably over time.




@alway

In theory, all the menial labor could be channeled elsewhere, where machines can't do the job efficiently. I don't think we have anyone we can trust to organize that, though. Not sure how to solve this except just having everything done manually, but that's inefficient as hell.

Scratch that, we need to augment the human brain (preferably by growing it instead of joining into some super bio-mechanical hivemind) so people can keep ahead of the machines. Augmenting the body tissue would be good as well, but takes a back seat to maintaining intellectual dominance over our machines. But this would lead to some huge barely related discussion if we get into it much further.

[alway]

In theory, all the menial labor could be channeled elsewhere, where machines can't do the job efficiently. I don't think we have anyone we can trust to organize that, though. Not sure how to solve this except just having everything done manually, but that's inefficient as hell.

Scratch that, we need to augment the human brain (preferably by growing it instead of joining into some super bio-mechanical hivemind) so people can keep ahead of the machines. Augmenting the body tissue would be good as well, but takes a back seat to maintaining intellectual dominance over our machines. But this would lead to some huge barely related discussion if we get into it much further.

The first fails to solve the problem; it merely gives the poor masses something to do as they become increasingly poor due to wages competing with the rapid drop in automation costs.

The second... Well, I think the entire genre of 'cyberpunk' pretty well covers that. It essentially comes down to augmentation being hella expensive, thus widening the gap between rich and poor even further. There becomes a systemic change in which the poor are poor not because of soft boundaries like less adequate educational opportunities and poor living conditions but because of the hard boundaries of their parents being unable to afford the expensive augmentations used by the rich; which can not be overcome by any genetics, will, or other learned or genetic traits. Think of the difference today between a brand new $5000 pc and an 8 year old pc which cost $300 at the time of purchase, then consider the comparative usefulness to employers of people augmented with a similar disparity in access to technology.

[Lagslayer]

In theory, all the menial labor could be channeled elsewhere, where machines can't do the job efficiently. I don't think we have anyone we can trust to organize that, though. Not sure how to solve this except just having everything done manually, but that's inefficient as hell.

Scratch that, we need to augment the human brain (preferably by growing it instead of joining into some super bio-mechanical hivemind) so people can keep ahead of the machines. Augmenting the body tissue would be good as well, but takes a back seat to maintaining intellectual dominance over our machines. But this would lead to some huge barely related discussion if we get into it much further.

The first fails to solve the problem; it merely gives the poor masses something to do as they become increasingly poor due to wages competing with the rapid drop in automation costs.

The second... Well, I think the entire genre of 'cyberpunk' pretty well covers that. It essentially comes down to augmentation being hella expensive, thus widening the gap between rich and poor even further. There becomes a systemic change in which the poor are poor not because of soft boundaries like less adequate educational opportunities and poor living conditions but because of the hard boundaries of their parents being unable to afford the expensive augmentations used by the rich; which can not be overcome by any genetics, will, or other learned or genetic traits. Think of the difference today between a brand new $5000 pc and an 8 year old pc which cost $300 at the time of purchase, then consider the comparative usefulness to employers of people augmented with a similar disparity in access to technology.

I know it doesn't  solve the underlying problem. That was the point I was intending to convey. Sorry if I wasn't clear .

As for the augmentation, I was thinking something along the lines of brain growth chemicals, hopefully that can be made cheaply and be distributed en masse. Like one of those shots you get and don't think twice about it. Of course, to do something like this, with current laws, it would take many decades even under ideal circumstances to get approved. There would need to be a way to speed up the process if we hope to keep up with our machines. This is very touchy, but it's the only way I can see.

[SalmonGod]

WTF.... ok....

If it's cheaper to harvest our resources, pay to ship them to china, pay their taxes and workers, and then pay to have it shipped back then it is to just do it over here in the first place, then there is a serious problem with the cost of labor on this side.

There's also a serious problem with the cost of living.  Median income in the U.S. is around $26k, which is barely enough to support a small family on.  Half the population is making less than that.  And the answer is to lower wages to compete with people on the other side of the world?  What's the point in working a job if it doesn't pay enough to live on?

I think the problem is that corporations do not pay their employees in proportion to the profit that they generate.  I generate my entire year's salary in profit for my employer in less than a week.  This is wrong.

Unless we get some super utopian socialistic society, there are always going to be people just trying to scrape by.

And when those people make up the majority of the population, society will always be extremely unstable.  Better get to work on that socialist utopia.

I would reccommend doing something splitting like the rent with more people instead of just trying to pay for it all yourself. It would prevent another housing bubble, which started the whole downward spiral. It's not like the building can't accomodate more people, even if it would be inconvenient. Everyone gets a roof over their heads for a lot less money and it only costs a little space. Split the big bills with someone else who's willing, and just share it. It's like socialism, except everyone involved consents to it.

This blows my mind.  It sounds to me like you're making a blanket statement about the poor not taking advantage of shared housing arrangements.  You do realize that extended family homes are becoming a normal thing again, and a very large portion of young adults are living with their parents until their mid-30's, right?

I'm one of very few people I personally know of my own generation who is supporting a family in a condo on a single income.  I've practically begged some of my friends to move into a place with us so we can share some of the burden, but all the people I know well enough to do this with are either already settled into a shared housing situation or couldn't contribute enough money for us to be able to afford a place large enough to accomodate us.

Trust me.  People are doing this.  But you make it sound like this is a solution to the problem, when it's nothing but a coping mechanism.

Scratch that, we need to augment the human brain (preferably by growing it instead of joining into some super bio-mechanical hivemind) so people can keep ahead of the machines. Augmenting the body tissue would be good as well, but takes a back seat to maintaining intellectual dominance over our machines. But this would lead to some huge barely related discussion if we get into it much further.[/color]

And... and... what is this I don't even!  I'm not going to put much faith in science fiction swooping in to save us, especially something like a large-scale brain augmentation scheme.

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

WTF.... ok....

If it's cheaper to harvest our resources, pay to ship them to china, pay their taxes and workers, and then pay to have it shipped back then it is to just do it over here in the first place, then there is a serious problem with the cost of labor on this side.

There's also a serious problem with the cost of living.  Median income in the U.S. is around $26k, which is barely enough to support a small family on.  Half the population is making less than that.  And the answer is to lower wages to compete with people on the other side of the world?  What's the point in working a job if it doesn't pay enough to live on?

I think the problem is that corporations do not pay their employees in proportion to the profit that they generate.  I generate my entire year's salary in profit for my employer in less than a week.  This is wrong.

Unless we get some super utopian socialistic society, there are always going to be people just trying to scrape by.

And when those people make up the majority of the population, society will always be extremely unstable.  Better get to work on that socialist utopia.

I would reccommend doing something splitting like the rent with more people instead of just trying to pay for it all yourself. It would prevent another housing bubble, which started the whole downward spiral. It's not like the building can't accomodate more people, even if it would be inconvenient. Everyone gets a roof over their heads for a lot less money and it only costs a little space. Split the big bills with someone else who's willing, and just share it. It's like socialism, except everyone involved consents to it.

This blows my mind.  It sounds to me like you're making a blanket statement about the poor not taking advantage of shared housing arrangements.  You do realize that extended family homes are becoming a normal thing again, and a very large portion of young adults are living with their parents until their mid-30's, right?

I'm one of very few people I personally know of my own generation who is supporting a family in a condo on a single income.  I've practically begged some of my friends to move into a place with us so we can share some of the burden, but all the people I know well enough to do this with are either already settled into a shared housing situation or couldn't contribute enough money for us to be able to afford a place large enough to accomodate us.

Trust me.  People are doing this.  But you make it sound like this is a solution to the problem, when it's nothing but a coping mechanism.

Scratch that, we need to augment the human brain (preferably by growing it instead of joining into some super bio-mechanical hivemind) so people can keep ahead of the machines. Augmenting the body tissue would be good as well, but takes a back seat to maintaining intellectual dominance over our machines. But this would lead to some huge barely related discussion if we get into it much further.[/color]

And... and... what is this I don't even!  I'm not going to put much faith in science fiction swooping in to save us, especially something like a large-scale brain augmentation scheme.

1. INFLATION!!!Just jacking up wages to even out income distribution will do little or nothing by itself. If more people have more money, than the retailers will just jack up the prices because they can. As for the increase of wages as the company does better, how about if it does worse? Do you honestly think people are just going to accept a pay cut because the company isn't doing well? I'm not saying it doesn't work in theory, just that people would never go for it.



2. And you intend to trust that socialist utopia to who? The government? The same government that people failed to keep in check the first time? The people who mostly just don't give a shit until it's too late, and probably never will? The people who, while individually are fairly intelligent, turn into mindless drones when introduced to the group mentality?



3. Just a suggestion, not that it couldn't go even farther. I don't claim to know the actual number of people doing this. I just don't think they should have any loans forgiven because they were too stupid to understand their contract, or just thought the gravy train would never end and took a stupid risk. If you take a gamble and lose, don't bitch and try to weasel your way out of it. If you aren't 100% sure you understand the agreement, then smarter people are going to take advantage of you. This is a fact of life that will never, EVER go away. Don't enter an agreement you can't understand. And to all the people that said to themselves "If this doesn't work, I'll just appeal to the government to bail me out of my debt", you are the worst type of people I can imagine. So, what's your solution? To give the government more power? I think they have more than enough power to abuse.



4. I'm saying we need to figure out some way to augment ourselves. Allowing our machines to evolve at lightning fast pace while we just plod along like a snail will see us become completely irrelevant next to them. Can you say "robot overlords"? How about if they don't just take over. What if they are subservient to us, still, but obviously much smarter and stronger? We are basically just babies, forever. I don't like that. I want the human species to matter.

Melding with the machines devalues what we are so much it's barely any better. Even then, we would eventually need to give up all of our biological components because they still can't keep up.

Joining into one Borg-like hivemind strips us of all individuality, which I absolutely detest.

Genetic engineering is an option, and better than the previous solutions (according to my ethical code, anyways), but fundamentally changes what we are. If we intentionally manipulate our genetic code, how can we even consider ourselves human anymore?

What I suggest is to use chemicals or techniques that utilize the DNA we already have. Not as autonomous as changing the DNA itself, but we are fundamentally unchanged.