economy

[sodderboy]

The graph is based on fake numbers.  Look at page 29 of the White House budget (35/62 of the actual doc) and you will see that 51% doth not make a PacMan.  I am not surprised.
Because of the source you ate it and re-posted without looking at the label.  You consume much informational MSG this way.

Looks like Ethan liquidated the "What makes a s-hole country" thread right when you brought out the Straw Man.  You are a straw man, or kid.  Work some shite years.  Research, bid, win, and build some five-figure projects where you employ people and at the end you say "Well I made about $5 per hour but I learned a lot!".  Actually live some life where you are solely responsible for yourself, maybe others, and we will re-visit a discussion on how great and equitable communism is.

Mike

 

[tands]

We can revisit it now if you like. Can you refute Marx's theory of surplus value, or tell me where it, as you said earlier, 'breaks down'? What did you mean by that? Can you refute ANY of Marks' analysis of the operations of capitalism?

Please proceed. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

The graph is based on fake numbers.  Look at page 29 of the White House budget (35/62 of the actual doc) and you will see that 51% doth not make a PacMan.  I am not surprised.
Because of the source you ate it and re-posted without looking at the label.  You consume much informational MSG this way.

Looks like Ethan liquidated the "What makes a s-hole country" thread right when you brought out the Straw Man.  You are a straw man, or kid.  Work some sh*te years.  Research, bid, win, and build some five-figure projects where you employ people and at the end you say "Well I made about $5 per hour but I learned a lot!".  Actually live some life where you are solely responsible for yourself, maybe others, and we will re-visit a discussion on how great and equitable communism is.

Mike

I gonged the s_hole thread because 3 forum members suggested, and I agree...

BTW if you keep doing the same thing you will get the same result.

Please don't make me read this poop... I have better things to do.

JR

 

[Script]

Growing the economy faster is the only win-win-win to avoid a future debt crisis...

Debt remission is seen as a highly unpopular means, although it is not entirely without merit. Granting it in parts at some point in the future might be unavoidable (at both national and international levels), but it depends on many things. A high inflation environment makes it easier or more likely.

However, as of today, this is complete science fiction. But could also be Biblical -- as in shmita. See: Deuteronomy 15:1-11 (Laws concerning the Sabbatical Year).

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+15%3A1%E2%80%9311&version=NRSV
(Almost socialist / communist in drive -- or, in this context, better let's say 'communal'.)

 

[Spiritworks]

Seriously with the disbelief?

That was clearly a long time ago. Are you saying you could do the same today?

Yes. It's a matter of priorities.

 

[tands]

How much was your debt?

 

[Matador]

Yes. It's a matter of priorities.

The landscape has changed significantly over the past 30 years, so to say it's as simple as is was in 1980 isn't really true.

I think most research shows that the majority of cost increases are due to shrinking state education budgets, as most tuition increases track pretty well (in inflation adjusted dollars) with reductions in state funding of public college institutions.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The landscape has changed significantly over the past 30 years, so to say it's as simple as is was in 1980 isn't really true.

I was class of '71 but dropped out because I was a bad student. (It was a 5 year co-op program with roughly 50% school, 50% actual jobs... I much preferred the work part, but they weren't exactly great jobs (draftsman, QC inspector, etc).

After I got out of that army I took one night course funded by the GI Bill, but I didn't finish that either, when I got a better job offer in a different state.  I tried night school again late last century (funded by my employer) but that course (C programming) turned out to be a joke,,, A's for showing up. teacher wasn't even proficient at C programming, but that could be a MS community college thing.  :

I think most research shows that the majority of cost increases are due to shrinking state education budgets, as most tuition increases track pretty well (in inflation adjusted dollars) with reductions in state funding of public college institutions.

Most research? I tried to google that specifically and was not very successful. A more appropriate graph, without obvious class warfare agenda, would be tuition vs. cost of living.

Sorry but I do not follow your logic. What does state education budgets and spending, have to do with overall college tuition?  It could make a difference for state run universities but I doubt that explains, MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc. increasing tuition and board costs.  In fact back in history they didn't even charge for tuition but only the wealthy could afford the living cost to attend university, without independent wealth.

After WWII the GI bill helped many afford college who couldn't otherwise.  Since the late 1950s the federal government has guaranteed student loans, but in 2010 President Obama eliminated the loan guarantee program and made all student loans direct from the government.

I still believe that the simple answer is economics 101, supply and demand. Too much money from too easy lending has increased demand and colleges have been quick to raise rates in response, much faster than inflation that has been low (due to productivity increases).

Again I caution about the government confusing correlation with causation. The simplistic college graduates had better outcomes thinking led to increased number of people attending college, but how many of them are now having trouble getting high paying jobs to pay back those loans?

I still think access to education is important for providing opportunity for all individuals to improve their outcomes. But getting a beneficial education does not mean attending the party school du jour, and studying community organizing.

I am optimistic that technology can reduce the cost and dramatically increase access to useful skills training. Throwing money at problems is what legislators try to do, because that is the only tool in their box, but as we've seen that not only doesn't fix things but makes new problems as students saddled with high debt loads can't afford to buy houses and get on with their adult lives. 

JR

PS: I just started reading that 850 page book about wealth in America. Since this details some 40 years of empirical studies I don't expect different headlines (or simple answers), but richer detail.

 

[tands]

Most research? I tried to google that specifically and was not very successful. A more appropriate graph, without obvious class warfare agenda, would be tuition vs. cost of living.

You want to leave out income because including it indicates a 'class warfare agenda'? Don't you think income, debt, and cost of living are all relevant? Cost of living is higher too, anyway.

Capitalism = class warfare. There's no reason to ignore that fact.

Whole Foods Becomes Amazon Hell Foods as Employees, Managers Quit, Cry on the Job….and These People Want to Run Your Healthcare?

Posted on February 2, 2018 by Yves Smith

As we’ve said, Jeff Bezos clearly hates people, except as appendages to bank accounts. All you need to do is observe how he treats his workers.

In a scoop, Business Insider reports on how Amazon is creating massive turnover and pointless misery at Whole Food by imposing a reign of terror impossible and misguided productivity targets.

Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to Amazon will see its abuse of out of Whole Foods workers as confirmation of an established pattern. And even more tellingly, despite Whole Foods supposedly being a retail business that Bezos would understand, the unrealistic Whole Foods metrics aren’t making the shopping experience better.

As we’ll discuss below, we’d already expressed doubts about how relevant Bezos’ hyped Amazon model would be to Whole Foods. Proof is surfacing even faster than we expected.

But first to Bezos’ general pattern of employee mistreatment.

It’s bad enough that Bezos engages in the worst sort of class warfare and treats warehouse workers worse than the ASPCA would allow livery drivers to use horses. Not only do horses at least get fed an adequate ration, while Amazon warehouse workers regularly earn less than a local living wage, but even after pressure to end literal sweatshop conditions (no air conditioning so inside temperatures could hit 100 degrees; Amazon preferred to have ambulances at ready for the inevitable heatstroke victims rather than pay to cool air), Amazon warehouse workers are, thanks to intensive monitoring, pressed to work at such a brutal pace that most can’t handle it physically and quit by the six month mark. For instance, from a 2017 Gizmodo story, Reminder: Amazon Treats Its Employees Like sh*t:

  Amazon, like most tech companies, is skilled at getting stories about whatever bull**** it decides to feed the press. Amazon would very much prefer to have reporters writing some drivel about a discount code than reminding people that its tens of thousands of engineers and warehouse workers are ****ing miserable. How do I know they’re miserable? Because (as the testimony below demonstrates) they’ve told every writer who’s bothered to ask for years.

    Gawker, May 2014 – “I Do Not Know One Person Who Is Happy at Amazon”

    ….

    The New York Times, August 2015- “Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace”

    …..

    The Huffington Post, October 2015 – “The Life and Death of an Amazon Warehouse Temp”

For a good overview of the how Amazon goes about making its warehouse workers’ lives hell, see Salon’s Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon’s sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers.

Mind you, Amazon’s institutionalized sadism isn’t limited to its sweatshops. Amazon is also cruel to its office workers. The New York Times story that Gizmodo selected, based on over 100 employee interviews, included:

    Bo Olson…lasted less than two years in a book marketing role and said that his enduring image was watching people weep in the office, a sight other workers described as well. “You walk out of a conference room and you’ll see a grown man covering his face,” he said. “Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk.”

While that paragraph was the most widely quoted from that story, some reporters reacted strongly to other bits. For instance, from The Verge:

    Perhaps worst of all is Amazon’s apparent approach when its employees need help. The Times has uncovered several cases where workers who were sick, grieving, or otherwise encumbered by the realities of life were pushed out of the company. A woman who had a miscarriage was told to travel on a business trip the day after both her twins were stillborn. Another woman recovering from breast cancer was given poor performance rankings and was warned that she was in danger of losing her job.

oh, lots more

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/02/whole-foods-becomes-amazon-hell-foods-employees-managers-quit-cry-job-people-want-run-healthcare.html

.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You want to leave out income because including it indicates a 'class warfare agenda'? Don't you think income, debt, and cost of living are all relevant? Cost of living is higher too, anyway.

Capitalism = class warfare. There's no reason to ignore that fact.

That is not a fact... You appear to be misinformed (or intentionally trying to spin.)

    ….

    The New York Times, August 2015- “Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace”

    …..

    The Huffington Post, October 2015 – “The Life and Death of an Amazon Warehouse Temp”

For a good overview of the how Amazon goes about making its warehouse workers’ lives hell, see Salon’s Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon’s sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers.

Mind you, Amazon’s institutionalized sadism isn’t limited to its sweatshops. Amazon is also cruel to its office workers. The New York Times story that Gizmodo selected, based on over 100 employee interviews, included:

    Bo Olson…lasted less than two years in a book marketing role and said that his enduring image was watching people weep in the office, a sight other workers described as well. “You walk out of a conference room and you’ll see a grown man covering his face,” he said. “Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk.”

While that paragraph was the most widely quoted from that story, some reporters reacted strongly to other bits. For instance, from The Verge:

    Perhaps worst of all is Amazon’s apparent approach when its employees need help. The Times has uncovered several cases where workers who were sick, grieving, or otherwise encumbered by the realities of life were pushed out of the company. A woman who had a miscarriage was told to travel on a business trip the day after both her twins were stillborn. Another woman recovering from breast cancer was given poor performance rankings and was warned that she was in danger of losing her job.

oh, lots more

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/02/whole-foods-becomes-amazon-hell-foods-employees-managers-quit-cry-job-people-want-run-healthcare.html

.

Makes me feel better about selling my amazon stock... but regrettably it went up hundreds of dollars a share after I sold...  :

I suspect your rose colored glasses are dirty.  ;D

JR

 

[Matador]

Most research? I tried to google that specifically and was not very successful. A more appropriate graph, without obvious class warfare agenda, would be tuition vs. cost of living.

Is this the new version of 'data has a liberal bias'? 

Sorry but I do not follow your logic. What does state education budgets and spending, have to do with overall college tuition?  It could make a difference for state run universities but I doubt that explains, MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc. increasing tuition and board costs.  In fact back in history they didn't even charge for tuition but only the wealthy could afford the living cost to attend university, without independent wealth.

The chart is labeled 'public four year institutions'.  I agree that private colleges have different cost drivers.

I still think access to education is important for providing opportunity for all individuals to improve their outcomes. But getting a beneficial education does not mean attending the party school du jour, and studying community organizing.

Tsk tsk...weren't you just admonishing someone for 'political screeds' in this very thread?  :-[

I agree that credit is partly to blame for the increase in tuition rates, however, like health care, we can look elsewhere for possible answers to these questions.  Germany, France, Sweden, and Denmark all offer (essentially) free tuition to public universities, and their costs are not rising unchecked as the rates seen in the US.  Many of these countries also offer vocational training and don't push everyone into public universities either.

 

[tands]

That is not a fact... You appear to be misinformed (or intentionally trying to spin.)

Are you suggesting Bezos, the richest capitalist in the world, is doing it incorrectly?

At minimum, if Marks' theory of surplus value is accurate, then capitalism is class warfare.

Nobody (honestly) denies that Marks' theory of surplus value is in fact accurate. Therefore, capitalism is class warfare. Specifically, the war of the capitalist on everyone else.

Is there some big mystery here?  ???

As said before, Marx’s theory of classes is based on the recognition that in each class society, part of society (the ruling class) appropriates the social surplus product. But that surplus product can take three essentially different forms (or a combination of them). It can take the form of straightforward unpaid surplus labour, as in the slave mode of production, early feudalism or some sectors of the Asiatic mode of production (unpaid corvée labour for the Empire). It can take the form of goods appropriated by the ruling class in the form of use-values pure and simple (the products of surplus labour), as under feudalism when feudal rent is paid in a certain amount of produce (produce rent) or in its more modern remnants, such as sharecropping. And it can take a money form, like money-rent in the final phases of feudalism, and capitalist profits. Surplus-value is essentially just that: the money form of the social surplus product or, what amounts to the same, the money product of surplus labour. It has therefore a common root with all other forms of surplus product: unpaid labour.

This means that Marx’s theory of surplus-value is basically a deduction (or residual) theory of the ruling classes’ income. The whole social product (the net national income) is produced in the course of the process of production, exactly as the whole crop is harvested by the peasants. What happens on the market (or through appropriation of the produce) is a distribution (or redistribution) of what already has been created. The surplus product, and therefore also its money form, surplus-value, is the residual of that new (net) social product (income) which remains after the producing classes have received their compensation (under capitalism: their wages). This ‘deduction’ theory of the ruling classes’ income is thus ipso factor an exploitation theory. Not in the ethical sense of the word – although Marx and Engels obviously manifested a lot of understandable moral indignation at the fate of all the exploited throughout history, and especially at the fate of the modern proletariat – but in the economic one. The income of the ruling classes can always be reduced in the final analysis to the product of unpaid labour: that is the heart of Marx’s theory of exploitation.

That is also the reason why Marx attached so much importance to treating surplus-value as a general category, over and above profits (themselves subdivided into industrial profits, bank profits, commercial profits etc.), interest and rent, which are all part of the total surplus product produced by wage labour. It is this general category which explains both the existence of the ruling class (all those who live off surplus value), and the origins of the class struggle under capitalism.

https://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/txt/1990/karlmarx/7.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d0U_x0GmSE

.

 

[CJ]

school is for rich people only. paid $212.50 a quarter at UC Davis, which the state paid on a scholarship so 
zero tuition.

now it is up to about 30 grand a year wtf?

had for anybody to get ahead. if you do graduate, citibank takes the difference in your pay .  everybody use to have a chance in this country, not any more.  this is a shame because a lot of the talent comes from students who were poor growing up, instead of a  bunch of rich brats born with a silver spoon in their mouth.



gotta love t-Rump giving a state of the economy jive session in Ohio while the tv monitors in the back are showing the worst day in stock market history,

 

[Spiritworks]

How much was your debt?

Around $10K . At a time when minimum wage was $1.17 per hour.  I agree that costs are significantly different now, however, which makes it more difficult. My point is why should someone else pay my debt simply because I feel it's unfair? There's no such thing as a free lunch. And there are people who take on high amounts of debt with the intention, right from the start, of never paying it back.
I also agree that tuition costs are out of hand and that there are many diverse reasons for it being that way. 
In case it needs to be said, the spoon in my mouth was plastic ( still is, lol ). I was only the second person in my extended family to ever get to college, and it was the local college one step up from community college, which didn't even have dorms at the time.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Around $10K . At a time when minimum wage was $1.17 per hour.

how old are you...? My first job (in the 60's) paid minimum wage of $1.25 hour.  ;D

I agree that costs are significantly different now, however, which makes it more difficult. My point is why should someone else pay my debt simply because I feel it's unfair? There's no such thing as a free lunch. And there are people who take on high amounts of debt with the intention, right from the start, of never paying it back.
I also agree that tuition costs are out of hand and that there are many diverse reasons for it being that way. 
In case it needs to be said, the spoon in my mouth was plastic ( still is, lol ). I was only the second person in my extended family to ever get to college, and it was the local college one step up from community college, which didn't even have dorms at the time.

There is a public benefit from an educated populace, but just throwing money at it, distorts the supply/demand relationship, increasing prices.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

school is for rich people only. paid $212.50 a quarter at UC Davis, which the state paid on a scholarship so 
zero tuition.

now it is up to about 30 grand a year wtf?

had for anybody to get ahead. if you do graduate, citibank takes the difference in your pay .  everybody use to have a chance in this country, not any more.  this is a shame because a lot of the talent comes from students who were poor growing up, instead of a  bunch of rich brats born with a silver spoon in their mouth.



gotta love t-Rump giving a state of the economy jive session in Ohio while the tv monitors in the back are showing the worst day in stock market history,

What goes up must come down (correct before going higher)... unwise to take too much credit for the stock market which is relatively expensive after a long bull market and does not go up in a straight line.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Are you suggesting Bezos, the richest capitalist in the world, is doing it incorrectly?

Jeff Bezos is often the smartest guy in any room he is in...  It is kind of amusing how he has manipulated multiple state governors into bending over backwards to offer him tax breaks to locate his secondary headquarters  in their states.  Turning what would be viewed as excesses of a huge business into a positive PR opportunity.

It seems like a pretty good bet (IMO) that he will locate in the Washington DC metro area (3 nearby sites under review IIRC) so his lobbyists don't have a long commute to work on legislators and regulators (crony capitalism). When a business reaches his scale managing government is a serious concern, and I don't think he bought the  Washington Post for $250M because he likes failing newspapers.

At minimum, if Marks' theory of surplus value is accurate, then capitalism is class warfare.

I can't tell if you are serious calling Marx "Marks".

Marx's theory of "surplus value" suggests that labor is responsible for the difference in value of a finished good. This is very popular political concept for rallying workers to oppose their managers, since everybody thinks they are underpaid and want more money (who doesn't). In a free market, people are paid pretty much what they are worth. If you think your labor is worth more that you are paid quit and sell it yourself. I have started several businesses myself and currently work for myself (the only downside is that my boss is an a__hole).

One interesting modern trend is the increasing use of automation to eliminate human labor entirely. I hope those robots don't read Marx.  :

IMO Marx completely discounts the value of intellectual property. What makes a finished good more valuable than the pile of parts it is made from, is the utility it provides to the purchaser that comes from the design.  Sometimes that utility is enhanced by a product ecosystem (like Apple). The labor content of an Iphone is a tiny fraction of its actual worth.

I am continually reminded by how much better technology has made modern products, this has zero to do with labor and everything to do with product design.

Nobody (honestly) denies that Marks' theory of surplus value is in fact accurate.

Are you suggesting I must be dishonest? As I have said his theory is flawed and more of a political rallying call than valid economic theory (while economics is not a hard science so opinions vary).

Therefore, capitalism is class warfare. Specifically, the war of the capitalist on everyone else.

Again... class warfare is so politically attractive because there are fewer wealthy people, so they lose any popularity contest (like voting). Capitalism and free markets are about efficient utilization of resources (like capital) not suppression of poor people.  Look at the charitable contributions made by Bill Gates, in time and money since he retired. 

Is there some big mystery here?  ???

apparently... at least your link spelled Marx's name correctly.

https://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/txt/1990/karlmarx/7.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d0U_x0GmSE

.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so, for you or me.... (sorry I do not do youtube and your whatever links)

JR

PS: It is impossible to ignore the modern trends toward increasing concentration of wealth (actually been going on for multiple decades). This does not make the wealthy evil, but the outcome is undesirable. Rich people don't try to make other people poor, it is just an unintended  consequence of making themselves very rich inviting the comparison.

There is no simple answer for this (IMO), despite what some think. Punishing the wealthy will not make the poor, not poor. We need to make it easier for creative people to acquire skills and start their own businesses so they can create some real wealth for themselves. There will always be a lumpy distribution of wealth but government can not fix this by mandate.  If government manages outcomes they typically make everybody poor. The best we can do is provide a safety net for the poorest among us but individual outcomes will always depend on talent and effort (when opportunity is available like here in the US).

 

[JohnRoberts]

Is this the new version of 'data has a liberal bias'? 

No data is neutral, but presentation can impart a bias or spin.  As the old Mark Twain saying goes, "lies, damned lies, and statistics"

The chart is labeled 'public four year institutions'.  I agree that private colleges have different cost drivers.
Tsk tsk...weren't you just admonishing someone for 'political screeds' in this very thread?  :-[

just faulty ones, but i clearly am influenced by my life experience so have a bias.

I agree that credit is partly to blame for the increase in tuition rates, however, like health care, we can look elsewhere for possible answers to these questions.  Germany, France, Sweden, and Denmark all offer (essentially) free tuition to public universities, and their costs are not rising unchecked as the rates seen in the US.  Many of these countries also offer vocational training and don't push everyone into public universities either.

If the too easy credit is only partly to blame, what else is responsible?

JR

 

[living sounds]

Deficit spending during an expansion... We will all reaped what they sowed...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Deficit spending during an expansion... We will all reaped what they sowed...

The gamble is that getting faster GDP growth will reduce the deficit and debt, but at this point it is theoretical.

I am not enthusiastic about infrastructure spending that is being discussed, but do favor cleaning up the permitting process to reduce delays that should cause an increase in economic activity with no cost to the taxpayers. (I guess that is a theory too). ;D

JR