User Tag List

View Poll Results: Should minimum wage be abolished?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    10 18.52%
  • No.

    39 72.22%
  • I don't know.

    5 9.26%
First 101819202122 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 268

  1. #191
    Senior Member ScorpioINTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6-5
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Increases in communications and transportation technology (containerization being a huge one) have lead to the expansion of the labor pool available to process a given resource with minimal increases in price. Since the quantity supplied is much higher, but the demand remains fairly stable, this moves the supply curve to the right, resulting in a lower equilibrium price. It's not that union jobs are too expensive, or that they can't compete on the price point for the finished good (otherwise, they simply wouldn't be able to sell it - you always set at the price which clears the market), it's that they know they can get cheaper labor overhead elsewhere, and the savings leads to higher profitability. Since the general trend has been the concentration of corporate stock shares in the hands of the corporation's board of directors, this leads to higher executive bonuses, rather than the dividends that would be demanded by a more widely distributed stock pool.
    THIS.

    Although one caveat, some corporations pay bigger dividends (or unscheduled BIG dividends), because of the lower tax rate Bush set on dividends.
    Case in point. Lowes corp owns 50% or more of shares in 4 other corporations (DO, LO, BWP, CNA and a few wholly owned subsidiaries). So they pay out BIG quarterly dividends on top of the regular dividend to the parent company and shareholders for better tax treatment and thus more profits for the parent co/shareholders/board.
    Type 6w5 sp/so/sx I think..I have not fully explored this and just discovered it.

  2. #192
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScorpioINTP View Post
    When you put it like that it makes you wonder what the motivations for the big wars really were (not the history book version). Destroying or sabotaging your competition literally.
    Well the point of those wars were to stop people who were destroying the competition...that's what starts wars, that's the animalistic version, that someone or someone(s) wants to invade other countries and take over, and destroy The Other.

    It's a modern sense of conscience that caused WWI and WWII. To stop that shit from happening.

    It's interesting to me, because I'm quite the modernist in terms of adhering to what I see as very solid 20th century values, but people have alas become so comfortable that they imagine going back centuries to a more barbaric way of living is somehow more heroic or fair.

    It disgusts me, it seems anti-intellectual, and what's bizarre is that many NTs uphold this "hoorary for barbaric shit" attitude toward society and money...aren't they supposed to be intellectual?

    One my ENFP friends says it's because they're just totally delusional and want power, and believe they'll have it themselves, obviously, since they have such high opinions of themselves.

  3. #193
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScorpioINTP View Post
    When you put it like that it makes you wonder what the motivations for the big wars really were (not the history book version). Destroying or sabotaging your competition literally.
    Both World War I and World War II had practically the same purpose - to keep Germany from getting access to Middle Eastern oil, which would allow it to challenge British political and economic hegemony on an equal footing. This is why the UK switched from being heavily pro-Ottoman in the 19th Century to joining Russia in the Triple Entente at the turn of the last century. Once the Great War started, this gave the British the excuse they needed to go conquer all the known Middle Eastern oil fields held by the Ottomans, and being able to corner the Eurasian oil market at the time. When World War II started, this was the reason the British were fine with giving up Western Europe to the Nazis, while concentrating all their efforts on shoring up their North African and Middle Eastern defenses. They knew that if the Germans got to Riyadh and Baghdad, it would be just as if they successfully invaded Great Britain. It would be nothing more than a war of attrition at that point, and the Germans would have the huge chip lead.

    Of course, Britain pulled all of this while being completely broke at the time, which is why the US was able to buy out the economic British Empire from underneath them (it was good to be the biggest oil producer on the planet at the time). Of the industrial nations, the US was the only one with the productive capacity and wealth of natural resources needed to guarantee victory for either side in the war.

  4. #194
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    of course, one must take free trade agreements and the end of american economic isolationism into account as well (which I've kind of dreaded bringing up because that opens up a whole NEW can of worms )... people are naturally greedy creatures, it's only logical that if left unchecked the more powerful ones are going to make decisions that make themselves even richer even if it is at the expense of others (and if history is any indication as far as economic and political cycles go, potentially at the expense of their own descendants)
    Sometimes they do it so fast they even screw themselves. But that's not real common.

    But, yeah, basically, the more money you have the more capable you are of getting yet more money. It's hyperbolic and results in wealth accumulation.

    What's more, from a completely rational perspective, the more comparatively wealthy you are, the less incentive you have to contribute to public goods and services. If you have enough wealth to buy a fancy personal helicopter, why waste that money instead of creating a better infrastructure that still won't be as good as your fancy helicopter? Basically, if a person can do self-help of equal to greater value than publicly received help, they will invest in self-help at the loss of public help.

    You put these two things together and you have big problems ahead of you. You quickly get the majority of wealth in of fewer people who will use that wealth to get even more of it into fewer hands, and as a result, will rapidly become less and less inclined invest any of if into something of public value. A small clique of self-indulgent super-wealthy people hiding away from what is otherwise a rotten society of desperate vagabonds.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #195
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,130

    Default

    fear that a new Gilded Age is lurking around the corner magic sponge?
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  6. #196
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,781

    Default

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg5SwyTvAHw"]What the thread makes me think of[/YOUTUBE]
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  7. #197
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    fear that a new Gilded Age is lurking around the corner magic sponge?
    In frankness, I feel like we are already there and I'm worried about something worse than the gilded age.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #198
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Sometimes they do it so fast they even screw themselves. But that's not real common.

    But, yeah, basically, the more money you have the more capable you are of getting yet more money. It's hyperbolic and results in wealth accumulation.

    What's more, from a completely rational perspective, the more comparatively wealthy you are, the less incentive you have to contribute to public goods and services. If you have enough wealth to buy a fancy personal helicopter, why waste that money instead of creating a better infrastructure that still won't be as good as your fancy helicopter? Basically, if a person can do self-help of equal to greater value than publicly received help, they will invest in self-help at the loss of public help.

    You put these two things together and you have big problems ahead of you. You quickly get the majority of wealth in of fewer people who will use that wealth to get even more of it into fewer hands, and as a result, will rapidly become less and less inclined invest any of if into something of public value. A small clique of self-indulgent super-wealthy people hiding away from what is otherwise a rotten society of desperate vagabonds.
    It's true, and wealth is not necessarily a sign of genetic superiority, so I'm not sure how creating such a society will benefit the world in terms of genes.

    If anything, I think people have become much less inbred since society in general has become more equalized, interestingly enough. People in general are also much more educated. I don't comprehend why anyone sees this as a bad thing.

    I guess people are scared of poor people who can read. They might get IDEAS!!!!

  9. #199
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    I love that Magic Sponge... always wantin' to get his fingers in everybody's pockets.

  10. #200
    Senior Member ScorpioINTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6-5
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Both World War I and World War II had practically the same purpose - to keep Germany from getting access to Middle Eastern oil, which would allow it to challenge British political and economic hegemony on an equal footing. This is why the UK switched from being heavily pro-Ottoman in the 19th Century to joining Russia in the Triple Entente at the turn of the last century. Once the Great War started, this gave the British the excuse they needed to go conquer all the known Middle Eastern oil fields held by the Ottomans, and being able to corner the Eurasian oil market at the time. When World War II started, this was the reason the British were fine with giving up Western Europe to the Nazis, while concentrating all their efforts on shoring up their North African and Middle Eastern defenses. They knew that if the Germans got to Riyadh and Baghdad, it would be just as if they successfully invaded Great Britain. It would be nothing more than a war of attrition at that point, and the Germans would have the huge chip lead.

    Of course, Britain pulled all of this while being completely broke at the time, which is why the US was able to buy out the economic British Empire from underneath them (it was good to be the biggest oil producer on the planet at the time). Of the industrial nations, the US was the only one with the productive capacity and wealth of natural resources needed to guarantee victory for either side in the war.
    Interesting, I hadn't quite heard it put in those terms. I usually think of wars as stealing/aquiring assets/resources, but I see this time we were preventing the axis from stealing the resources we were stealing/exploiting. I also read something about the US cutting Japan off from Rubber and oil in the pacific (perhaps with the intent of having them attack us first, since neither war would have won political approval).

    But your post made me think in smaller terms of a mob crushing a competitor and taking all his business/territory.
    Type 6w5 sp/so/sx I think..I have not fully explored this and just discovered it.

Similar Threads

  1. Do you think K.U. should be granted permission to bring her poor mother to Japan?
    By Grand Admiral Crunch in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2016, 08:06 PM
  2. What do you think it means to be TRULY good?
    By SecondBest in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 11-06-2010, 03:41 AM
  3. Do you think that MBTI would be a useful tool in criminal profiling?
    By Mr. Sherlock Holmes in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-04-2010, 06:08 PM
  4. Do you think everything that should be done, can be done?
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 12:04 PM
  5. Time to re-evaluate myself (again?) - what do you think I am/could be?
    By TenebrousReflection in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO