The KGB Oracle
Posted By: Sini Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/14/12 09:19 PM
'Papa' John Schnatter's Obamacare

Another GOP CEO comes out with politically motivated threats. It will increase cost of doing business and impact bottom line! The same story again - providing health care and livable wage is bad for business. Taking care of your workers does not help maximize the revenue and CEO bonuses, especially in the service sector where training costs are minimal and no qualifications are needed. Maximize your profit! Move everyone to part time, offload costs of running your business to society, because you can.

Where did Henry Fords of business world went? If John Schnatter's of the world have their way, US won't have anyone able to afford his shitty greasy pizzas.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/15/12 09:15 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2011/10/06/how-to-create-shortages-in-an-abundant-world/
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/15/12 10:50 PM
Yep you got them, only GOP CEO's put profit for the shareholders on top of the list they are suppose to do.

All Democrat CEO's take all the profits and give out candy and unicorns to the employees.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 03:09 AM
More Republican scum CEOs.

@Helemoto. Clearly, people do not deserve a livable wage for honest work, because there really shouldn't be an alternative to being on welfare or in the top 1%.
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 04:15 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
More Republican scum CEOs.

@Helemoto. Clearly, people do not deserve a livable wage for honest work, because there really shouldn't be an alternative to being on welfare or in the top 1%.

Opps... http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinge...shioned-stupid/
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 05:57 AM

The point is if we are having to depend on the local pizza shack to deliver those kinds of wages and benefits to people, it means we have already completely screwed up at the macro level.

Management/Supervisory positions always had (comparatively) decent wages and benefits. Rank and file positions used to be filled mostly by kids and young adults in school or still finding their way.

The whole idea that pizza shack owners should be Henry Fords just shows that the conception held by many about what the real issues are is completely off base.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 06:49 AM
Originally Posted By: Derid

The point is if we are having to depend on the local pizza shack to deliver those kinds of wages and benefits to people, it means we have already completely screwed up at the macro level.

Management/Supervisory positions always had (comparatively) decent wages and benefits. Rank and file positions used to be filled mostly by kids and young adults in school or still finding their way.

The whole idea that pizza shack owners should be Henry Fords just shows that the conception held by many about what the real issues are is completely off base.

This
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 12:29 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
More Republican scum CEOs.

@Helemoto. Clearly, people do not deserve a livable wage for honest work, because there really shouldn't be an alternative to being on welfare or in the top 1%.



Why is it always one extreme or the other with you. Everyone is either dead broke or 1%.
I am now assuming you live in a cave somewhere that only has wifi and you have no need to
go into the real world.
Please explain how the world will work if every job is full time with full benifits and
everyone has the same pay that you seem so hell bent on making.

These CEOs are making the point that they do not pay the cost when government raises taxes on
them, the cost gets passed on to the consumer or employees.
Even companys run by the worlds greatest Democrat CEOs.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 04:06 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

The point is if we are having to depend on the local pizza shack to deliver those kinds of wages and benefits to people, it means we have already completely screwed up at the macro level.

Management/Supervisory positions always had (comparatively) decent wages and benefits. Rank and file positions used to be filled mostly by kids and young adults in school or still finding their way.

The whole idea that pizza shack owners should be Henry Fords just shows that the conception held by many about what the real issues are is completely off base.


No, you are dodging the fundamental argument - that is if you WORK you should be COMPENSATED so you can LIVE OFF FRUITS OF YOUR LABOR.

Not paying livable wage, so a family of 2 working adults could buy food, clothing, shelter and health care is ultimate passing responsibility on society at large. This is nothing but another way to deal out CORPORATE HANDOUTS by subsidizing wages with welfare outlays.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 04:48 PM

2 working adults at pizza shack wages can already obtain that so your argument was a nonstarter. It does take 2, one alone cannot manage it - both adults have to work.

Also, do you really think every single job needs to pay a "livable wage"? Like I said, most pizza-shack level jobs are (or at least were, in my day) filled by kids and young adults. In other words, there are plenty of people in society that do not need a "livable wage" - and requiring every employer to provide one for every job will simply reduce the amount of jobs available to those who simply need to supplement their income, or have spending money.

Besides, if there is a shortage of work - and the supply of adults who need to make a livable wage is overly high to the point where the govt needs to intervene... look to the govt itself as the cause of this situation.

In the end, wages and labor need to respond to market forces. Using "fairness" as a pretext to distort this process will only end badly for all involved, including and especially the lower income people. If adult labor is so abundant that pizza shacks have no problems filling their positions with people willing to work for wages you do not consider livable, then that should tell us something. What it should tell us is not that pizza moguls are evil evil heartless people, but rather that we, as a society have so seriously dropped the ball that the only job many adults can obtain is a job in a pizza shack.

Instead of asking ourselves "how can we use govt violence to force pizza shack moguls to pay wages that are livable in my opinion"... the question we ought to be asking is "how did we arrive here in the first place, and how can we get out of it".

If I appeared to dodge your argument - it is because you are trying to deal with the wrong question.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 05:30 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

2 working adults at pizza shack wages can already obtain that


Not when some asshole CEO decided to switch everyone from FT to 30 hours week so he can make political grand-stand.

These aren't some abstract political ideas these CEO asshats are messing with, these are livelihoods of other people.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 05:32 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Also, do you really think every single job needs to pay a "livable wage"?


Yes, yes and yes, because alternative is welfare and doing nothing.

Quote:
In the end, wages and labor need to respond to market forces.


Absolutely not, because "market forces" include $2/day salary for working in sweatshops in third world. Using "market force" as an excuse to drag America down to such level all in the name of profit is EXACTLY why I say market force doesn't always work.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/16/12 06:25 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid

2 working adults at pizza shack wages can already obtain that


Not when some asshole CEO decided to switch everyone from FT to 30 hours week so he can make political grand-stand.

These aren't some abstract political ideas these CEO asshats are messing with, these are livelihoods of other people.
-----------------------

Yes, yes and yes, because alternative is welfare and doing nothing.
--------------------------------------
Absolutely not, because "market forces" include $2/day salary for working in sweatshops in third world. Using "market force" as an excuse to drag America down to such level all in the name of profit is EXACTLY why I say market force doesn't always work.



1) Blame the politicians who arrogantly and ignorantly decided to play God and pretend like they could make things better. Good intent or not, politicians are not capable of engineering society. Obamacare was just a fete to Big Pharma and Big Insurance anyhow.

2) Like I said, many people do not need a livable wage. You should really spend a little effort thinking through unintended consequences. Also remember that the same rules you institute with evil evil pizza shack moguls in mind, will also apply to the corner store who is considering hiring an extra clerk so they have more free time.

3) At 2$/hr you wont find many takers in the US yet, thankfully. Unless people wise up to the destructiveness their good intentions actually manifest when turned into reality via govt violence that might change though. If you think that market forces would drive labor down to 2$/hr in a free society you arent thinking it through sufficiently. Conversely, low wages for a particular field simply sends a needed signal to society that " hey! we dont need any more people doing this! its worthless! Find something else to do!". Such signals are needed in order for the economy to run smoothly, and for people to plan intelligently regarding future careers. Your method sends the signal that "hey it doesn't matter, no matter what you will be taken care of. It doesn't matter if you choose to dig holes and fill them back up - someone has you covered!". Which is the wrong signal to send.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/17/12 07:02 AM
You advocating market force while conveniently ignoring WHO is on other side of that competition (hint - not an open democratic societies that allow its citizens decent living) is nothing short of a farce.

"Many people don't need livable wage" is an absurd argument. You ether have government or parents paying "the rest", both are 'safety nets'.

With all this complaining about "big government" you don't seem to have the problem with handouts to businesses in form of complimenting wages with welfare, because they colluded to set wages below livable wage.

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT acknowledge that when Papa Jones pays minimum wage, no beni 30h/week "part time" wage to someone, who in turn have to get A) all taxes reimbursed B) welfare handouts from the government, then Papa Jones effectively passes his costs onto government, and us the taxpayers? Why should I pay, with my tax dollars, for Papa Jones labor costs?
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/17/12 02:16 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
You advocating market force while conveniently ignoring WHO is on other side of that competition (hint - not an open democratic societies that allow its citizens decent living) is nothing short of a farce.

"Many people don't need livable wage" is an absurd argument. You ether have government or parents paying "the rest", both are 'safety nets'.

With all this complaining about "big government" you don't seem to have the problem with handouts to businesses in form of complimenting wages with welfare, because they colluded to set wages below livable wage.

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT acknowledge that when Papa Jones pays minimum wage, no beni 30h/week "part time" wage to someone, who in turn have to get A) all taxes reimbursed B) welfare handouts from the government, then Papa Jones effectively passes his costs onto government, and us the taxpayers? Why should I pay, with my tax dollars, for Papa Jones labor costs?


Lets say your argument is right. You would be wrong in one part. You do not know what labor cost is.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/17/12 02:43 PM

Papa Johns is going to have a hard time selling hot fresh pizzas made in China.

Besides, I have never been a "free trader". I differ with many libertarians regarding the free trade issue, even though my principles are the same because I view the trade/economic model slightly differently. Explaining it would bring us into the weeds, so I will leave it for another post.

Suffice to say in short, that I endorse free trade with other free traders and free societies and endorse tariffs against regimes that make effective use of slave labor or interventionism. An economy is something shared, and sharing your economic pool in an unrestricted manner with those who would piss in it is unwise.

-

Many people not needing a "livable" wage is simply an obvious observation. I find it hard to believe you would even try to make a contradictory case. "Livable" is also a relative term.

Lets look at this from a couple different angles -

First, it should be self evident that if less jobs are available then there will be more people with no non-supported income at all.

Second, lets talk about livability for a second. Kids, are going to be living with their parents regardless in almost all cases. Having a job simply lets them start gaining work experience and making their own monetary decisions, as well as getting the things they want without having to bug their parents for it. As far as students and young adults go, standards of living are different. A "livable wage" to someone living in a dorm, or in a house/apt with several roomates (like a great many people, including myself, did during their youth) is completely different than a "livable wage" for someone who wants to support a spouse and multiple offspring. Drying up the source of jobs for these people is completely counterproductive. Perhaps you think students taking on even more debt, being less able to work is a good idea- I would not agree at all.

-
I do not see why Papa Johns should concern themselves with the idiocies of govt any more than needed. If the govt does idiotic things and creates silly arbitrary rules in a doomed attempt to engineer society, its simply for the rest of us - Papa John included, to navigate the waters of stupidity as best we can, even if that means making decisions that seem silly on the face of it.

-
0.23 does not "sound" like a lot, when thinking in term of one pizza. However, in a macro sense it adds up to quite a sum. Also, there are other factors regarding price and marketability.

Lets say a pizza is $10. Not only is a 2.3% increase in inputs significant, but from a marketing standpoint 10.23 is an odd number to pay for anything. There is a reason everything is $x.99 and that is market psychology. Also, in increased costs are passed on - this can of course result in reduced sales.

So forgetting the supposed " rights" of workers for a second - lets think about the input supplier- people who sell the flour and tomatoes etc. Lets also not forget the shareholders... many of whom are not pizza moguls, but rather retirees with PapaJohns shares in their 401k, municipalities, and even unions who have Papa Johns stock in their pension portfolios...

In the real world, economics is complex. "Fairness" and causality can neither one be boiled down to simple 1-1 relationships, there are a lot of moving parts.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/17/12 03:41 PM
You are desperately trying to move away the argument from the "livable wages" by coming with a long list of excuses and special cases.

Underlying argument, that you are yet to address, is that unless all jobs pay livable wages, that allow recipients of said livable wages to afford basics of food, shelter, clothing and medical care then two things happen: a) they supplement income from the outside source, be it from parents, government or raking up credit card or student debts b) they live below poverty line. There is no c).

Special circumstances, like students holding part time jobs while at school, are still offloading labor costs on the outside source.

Your overall argument sums up to - "more people should be on welfare and/or poor". When combined with your distaste of welfare it simplifies to "more people should be poor".

I don't think it will come as a surprise, but I disagree. Thankfully, so is the rest of the country. See election results.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/17/12 04:18 PM
No, they arent special circumstances. They are typical. Seriously, did you know anyone in their late teens and early 20's who never had a roomate? Its kind of ironic, that you use the assertion that "I am avoiding an argument" while you yourself completely avoid dealing with the numerous obstacles that reality throws up against your desire for societal engineering being able to have a positive outcome.

I am not desperately doing anything but pointing out that your logic is overly simplistic, and unrealistic. It does not, will not, and can not be beneficial to those of us who live in reality. Your premises are faulty, your data is lacking and if you are trying to answer the question of "How can we improve living for the poor while lessening welfare outlays" your mental model is wholly insufficient to provide the answer you seek.

The path to prosperity is less govt tinkering. Its really that simple. More prosperity equates to more people working, and less people on welfare. When more people are needed for employment, demand for labor increases and supply decreases pushing wages higher.

You make absurd conclusions on the basis that politicians should play SimCity, except they are all uniformly poor at it and reality is far more complex than any simulation.

More people do disagree with me for now, however noone has ever made a case that popularity and morality are one in the same. Or popularity and correctness, or popularity and anything but.. popularity.

The net result of your policies, despite all the intentions and simplistic moralizing in the world will be quite simple: More poverty, less prosperity, less opportunity, less liberty, and a generally worse living environment for everyone - not only including, bus especially for the people you purport to help.

And that, is the hard reality. The results speak for themselves, and the results are poor.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/17/12 04:39 PM
Originally Posted By: sini

Underlying argument, that you are yet to address, is that unless all jobs pay livable wages, that allow recipients of said livable wages to afford basics of food, shelter, clothing and medical care then two things happen: a) they supplement income from the outside source, be it from parents, government or raking up credit card or student debts b) they live below poverty line. There is no c).


Feel free to also address the argument of this discussion.

Quote:
The path to prosperity is less govt tinkering.


While above might be one of your more cherished believes, it does not address anything I have said.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/17/12 05:27 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: sini

Underlying argument, that you are yet to address, is that unless all jobs pay livable wages, that allow recipients of said livable wages to afford basics of food, shelter, clothing and medical care then two things happen: a) they supplement income from the outside source, be it from parents, government or raking up credit card or student debts b) they live below poverty line. There is no c).


Feel free to also address the argument of this discussion.

Quote:
The path to prosperity is less govt tinkering.


While above might be one of your more cherished believes, it does not address anything I have said.


Its irrelevant, all jobs pay livable wages when you get right down to it. If you want to be formal about it which it is seeming the direction you are taking this to focus so intensely on the point:

We can call your assertion true for now, however that truth does not support any other arguments you typically seem inclined to make.

So I am not sure why you spend so much time on it, and avoid the more interesting discussion regarding the ramifications of policies you generally consider friendly. (Like Obamacare)
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/17/12 10:27 PM
If I open a business tomorrow, what is the purpose of that business?
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/18/12 12:15 AM
Originally Posted By: Derid

We can call your assertion true for now, however that truth does not support any other arguments you typically seem inclined to make.

So I am not sure why you spend so much time on it...


Glad you asked.

Next point to consider, is why any business should be providing health care to its employees? It is logical conclusion, that is if you disregard conventions of human decency and social responsibility, to shed any and all responsibility for health care. If you are in a business of making pizza, why should you also be in a business of managing health care benefits? Also, why is there distinction between part time and full time jobs, is work different in any way?

So in this context a single-payer system, where both employees and employers pay payroll taxes, and health care is administered independent of type of employment one hold makes most sense.

This arrangement moves us closer to a system where everyone is paid 'market rate' wages, whatever it happens to be, and they are not as dependent on whims of employer to meet their basic needs. Throw in subsidized housing for people below some level of income, and you CAN have unregulated job market with no minimal wage and right-to-work.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/18/12 01:59 AM

I know you consider health care to be a right, but I think you need to restate that assertion for the record. It would have more merit if you categorized it as a privilege first world denizens should receive.

A right is something that exists and can be exercised regardless of context, and does not depend on an outside entity providing something. If you switch your definition, you can at least hold the same effective position on health care without being inaccurate on the face of it.
-

The problem with a single payer system, is that it will not work in the USA. In fact if the USA went to one, it would stop working in the small countries. For an example why - see instances in the USA where the current level of govt involvement in health care has already caused shortages of drugs and services where govt decides it doesnt want to pay market prices - and thus the insurance companies can also decline to pay market prices, because they cant be sued for not providing services that cost more than the going govt rate- instead they call it a shortage.

However, conversely, if govt was required to pay whatever was necessary to procure basic drugs and services - you can bet that health cartels extorting govt would become common. Unfortunately once govt gets involved, things tend to swing between extremes rather drastically. This is the result of price distortion. Sometimes these single payer models work for smaller countries, because functionally they work the same as if they were a large HMO or corporate buyer - hence our previous discussion as to why normalizing amount spend per capita on health care was not a valid way to compare efficiency or effectiveness of health systems.

In a pool of say 400 million health care consumers, 300 million of those are the USA lets say - and 6 million for Sweden. Well, the 6 million group of Sweden can band together and purchase health products from the 300 million strong free market - and at cheap bulk rates at that. Most of the provisioning of health products exists outside of the Swedish system, and as long as the Swedish govt is willing to pay market rates it works. As long as the market for the products in general is large enough to create economies of scale in production, Sweden can even get nice discounted bulk rates.

However if the USA group of 300 million became single payer - that is an entirely different ballgame. Suddenly you have one entity setting the price for each health product for the majority of the market - and there exists no larger market from which to obtain market pricing from. There is a huge difference between a small pool of people banding together to purchase at market rates, and the majority of people banding together and attempting to set the rates by fiat.

Lets leave housing out of the discussion for now, just to avoid needlessly introducing more complexity that needed to the arguments.

-

Now, I see your logic. It would be valid, if it could actually work. Unfortunately in reality, it would just create a large dichotomy between all those stuck in an inefficient system of shortages, and those who were wealthy enough to pay exorbitant prices. If you want to see only the ultra elites having access to good, modern health care then a single payer system is the way to do it. Even Obamacare will end up increasing the discrepancy between quality of care between rich and the rest.

-

Now, I have put a good amount of thought into how a single payer system might be made to work in reality, believe it or not. Contrary to what I am sure you assume, my objection to such a system lies in the fact that it will *not* work in the USA as opposed to some vague philosophical or ideological objection.

Assuming that the opponents of their proposals do so out of vague ideology or pure callousness is what I consider the greatest weakness of the modern left - because it prevents self introspection on the actual quality of their proposals, which is unfortunate, because that prevents the left from evolving their ideas and concocting systems that might actually work in reality.

Now, back to making a single payer system work.

-

First of all, for a single payer system to work it would need to not be single payer. In this, the left can look at Sweden as a genuine model - as actually though health is federally subsidized, localities actually manage the disbursement of funds. While their model still has inefficiencies, having actual planning and management occur on a very local level at least increases the responsiveness and efficiency of the planning to a very large degree over a system that was centrally managed.

Second, you need a market mechanism that responds to supply and demand. Without this, welcome to the world of perpetual shortages.

Third, you need a mechanism prevents price fixing, large contracts - we see how efficient govt contracts are in the military arena... ugh. The difference with military, is every other military we fight has to deal with the same efficiency problems - and cartels. The spectre of politically connected company getting govt contracts to provide sub-par services at exorbitant pricing is an absolute given whenever govt becomes the sole or primary purchaser of anything.

And thats all just for starters.

-

The only possible answer I have been able to come up with, is by commoditizing health products and have the buying/selling of such occur on a blind exchange similar to stocks/bonds. Make sure you obscure the purchasers, so you cannot tell if it is a govt or private entity.

At least this way, the market could see what services were available and which were in demand. In theory if someone else could do it cheaper, and still make money then profit motive would provide incentive to be competitive.

Of course there are other issues, including some macro issues regarding inflation - and still need to deal with the concept of what level of service is required or else you may still end up with macro inflation issues.

But turning health products into blind commodities is the only seed from which I can see any working system of universal care growing from. For any economic system to work well, it needs to have a healthy market - and subsidized people need to purchase from that market, much as Sweden purchases from the larger global market or else the entire thing will collapse on itself.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/18/12 02:20 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
You are desperately trying to move away the argument from the "livable wages" by coming with a long list of excuses and special cases.

Underlying argument, that you are yet to address, is that unless all jobs pay livable wages, that allow recipients of said livable wages to afford basics of food, shelter, clothing and medical care then two things happen: a) they supplement income from the outside source, be it from parents, government or raking up credit card or student debts b) they live below poverty line. There is no c).

Special circumstances, like students holding part time jobs while at school, are still offloading labor costs on the outside source.

Your overall argument sums up to - "more people should be on welfare and/or poor". When combined with your distaste of welfare it simplifies to "more people should be poor".

I don't think it will come as a surprise, but I disagree. Thankfully, so is the rest of the country. See election results.



So the election said everyone will have a livable wage. Maybe you should write Obama a letter telling him that, cause I don't think he knows that's what happened.

The fact that you think EVERY JOB should be a livable wage job is the most idiotic thing I have heard you say so far. You have no idea what you are talking about and this
calls into question everything you have ever said before.
You seem to have a nice little world invented in your minds eye. Maybe you should write a book.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/18/12 02:34 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid

We can call your assertion true for now, however that truth does not support any other arguments you typically seem inclined to make.

So I am not sure why you spend so much time on it...


Glad you asked.

Next point to consider, is why any business should be providing health care to its employees? It is logical conclusion, that is if you disregard conventions of human decency and social responsibility, to shed any and all responsibility for health care. If you are in a business of making pizza, why should you also be in a business of managing health care benefits? Also, why is there distinction between part time and full time jobs, is work different in any way?

So in this context a single-payer system, where both employees and employers pay payroll taxes, and health care is administered independent of type of employment one hold makes most sense.

This arrangement moves us closer to a system where everyone is paid 'market rate' wages, whatever it happens to be, and they are not as dependent on whims of employer to meet their basic needs. Throw in subsidized housing for people below some level of income, and you CAN have unregulated job market with no minimal wage and right-to-work.


First off no business HAS to provide anything to its employees. It is a benefit of employment if a business so choses to.

If you don't know the difference between part time and full time you need more help then I first believed.

Everyone is paid "market rate wages" already. It is not the job of an employer to meet the basic needs of anyone.

Now you say to get rid of minimum wage and subsidize housing, did you just have a seizure?

Seems to me you have found a new way to raise taxes.
Posted By: Daye Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/19/12 03:51 PM
"First off no business HAS to provide anything to its employees. It is a benefit of employment if a business so choses to."

True statement, however, daily hugs and sing-a-longs don't attract the workforce you're going to need to make your business happen. You have to be competitive against the other businesses trying to attract your future employees. Thus, does compensation factor in here. Both in wages and benefits.

With few exceptions, ( part-time, misc odd jobs, etc ) I would like to see all -full time- jobs provide compensation well beyond the poverty level. Pipe dream I know, but it would be nice to see folks carve out a living without having to hold three jobs to do so.

Would it make the end products more expensive ? Probably. Corporations aren't going to cut into their profits, so they'll just pass the costs along to us. Unfortunately, most of us wouldn't pay $20 for a combo meal at one of these places so the whole business would eventually implode. A catch-22.

We're addicted to cheap goods. Unfortunately, that means cheap labor as you can only cut so many corners. Thus my pipe-dream statement above.

In this case, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If we bump up the minimum wage to one that gets folks out of poverty, we run the risk of destroying the idea completely as folks abandon the product due to its rising cost.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/19/12 09:27 PM
----

Is healthcare a right or privilege?

It doesn’t really matter where you stand on this entirely artificial debate. Practicality of modern life is that health care has to be provided, and the only questions are how much, at what costs and with what outcome. Would you agree that providing health care to uninsured via emergency room visits is not cheap, not effective, and does not result in a good patient outcome?

Point #1: Right or privilege, it still has to be done.

Let also consider insured. Your typical insured health care consumer is not a rational market player, with a rare few exceptions consumption pattern is “all of it, all the time, at any cost”. In an individualistic society like US health care will be universally seen as a matter of self-preservation. In such environment pure market force acting via supply and demand cannot regulate the price. People will not turn away from cures or lifesaving treatments no matter what the cost is, so the ‘market’ forces will drive cost up only constrained by efficiency of extracting value from consumers. Ever-climbing cost of health insurance when some of these unconstrained costs get distributed to the insured population is a grim reminder of market system on-going failure.

For example, at this moment the only downward pressure on certain cancer treatments is an average net worth of a likely cancer patient. We see plenty of evidence of this -medically-related personal bankruptcy is still the leading category; even bankruptcies due to housing market collapse did not dethrone it.

Point #2: Health care demand is inelastic; as a result costs are contained only by ‘net worth’ calculations.

So what are actual sources of health care costs? Unsurprisingly end-of-life treatments come up the list, but so are emergency rooms. Administrative costs are obfuscated, but they greatly exceed stated industry average “profit margins” due to cost of doing business in addition to profit is creating unacceptable drag on the system. Still, with all of these costs it is clear that overall costs keep rising. This drives up price of coverage for everyone, cancer survivor and a healthy and fit 20-something looking for accidental coverage. With increasing wealth inequality and due to ‘net worth’ calculations more and more people are getting priced out of any and all coverage.

Point #3: Wealth inequality creates a situation where increased profit taking from well-off consumers makes pricing bottom out of the market a profitable and acceptable business decision.

------

Could a single-payer system work in US, and is it preferred alternative to existing system?

You mentioned few key concepts as your objections to single-payer – economies of scale and market price. I addressed market price with Point #2. Let us examine economies of scale.

Health care costs can be categorized in a following way – research and development, delivery of treatments, and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and devices.

Delivery of treatment is a fixed cost, no matter if you amputating the leg with a rusty saw or delivering laser brain surgery you still have to pay for training, facility and personnel. Implements do change, but I put them into separate category.

Your argument then will have to be refined into R&D and/or manufacturing. At this point mass production is well-understood concept, so we can consider costs of treatment and devices as mostly recouping costs of R&D. To support this assertion we can look at a low cost of generics.

R&D, with US doing something close to 60% of worldwide, is where most of expenses occur. Some of it is publicly funded, but lots of it is private. Covering costs of private research, design and clinical tests is the main source of raising healthcare costs.

So where does this entire R&D budget goes? Well, as with any business decision, it goes toward developing treatments that are most profitable. Point #2 and #3 come heavily into play here.

Point #4: Health care costs, at least in private sector research and development, are not driven by improving patient outcomes or quality of life but by maximizing profits.

So what does Point #4 means? It means that development of new treatments is not prioritized according to reducing suffering or finding new cures for obscure condition. This means that a lot, if not most, of private R&D is spent on gaining marginal improvements for blockbuster profit-generators. From the point of “greater good of a society” -this is not an effective use of our collective resources. Last cancer treatment was good enough; we do not need another one, one that we as a society can no longer afford and are not capable of refusing on individual level. (See Point #2).

With Point #4 in mind, single-payer will definitely reduce private investment into R&D. I demonstrated that this is not money well-spent, but rather money that can generate return. Single-payer will not produce shortages; nobody will take “will not sell” decision, they will simply take a loss and reduce future R&D.

Do you know why single-payer countries can negotiate lower prices? Well, partially because of ‘collective’ aspect of it, but mostly because of a threat of revoking patents and manufacturing generics. For example, if you refuse to sell a drug to Canada, they have a right to revoke your patent and manufacture generics right away.

This is exactly why we need single-payer in US. To rationally distribute health care. To put controls on run-away healthcare spending. To address Points 1-4.

----

I am not as concerned with single-payer, as I am concerned with providing universal coverage at a reasonable cost. If we simply take existing system and force universal coverage (Obamacare) then costs will spiral out of control.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/19/12 11:31 PM
The point was that in the US the federal government cannot and should not force the private businesses to provide the employee anything other than the minimum wage.

Your point on competition was, I thought, implied.

Some people think that the government should force the private businesses to pay wages at what they think is right and provide employees with every benefit known to mankind.

These people seem to want to burn the Constitution and start over with a utopia that is not attainable.
Posted By: Daye Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 12:30 AM
Unfortunately, there will always be an income disparity.

You can't pay everyone top pay as no one would be able to afford the product. In the emerging global economy, it gets worse.

Cost of living in Poorasdirtistan isn't close to our own. As a result, corporations can outsource simple labor to these countries and provide a cheaper product to undermine their competition who may still employ local ( US ) workers.

There is no fix for this that I can see unless we start taking steps backwards. It's in the companies best interests to cut their costs, but if the majority of the workforce in the US is under or unemployed, we won't be able to afford their product anyway. The end result will be the same. Company implodes.

How do you go about paying folks a decent wage so they can actually afford to buy the goods that keeps the economy going without killing your own company in the process ?
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 03:54 PM
Originally Posted By: Daye

How do you go about paying folks a decent wage so they can actually afford to buy the goods that keeps the economy going without killing your own company in the process ?


Daye, this is huge question that probably deserves its own thread.

It boils down to following - as a democratically elected government, should its priority be protecting corporate interests and profits or protecting citizens and their quality of life?
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 04:52 PM

If only things were that simple.

At the end of the day, we have the Classic Liberal model - which is responsible for most of the growth of living standards and wealth creation in human history.

Then, we have every other system ever tried.

The statement "protecting quality of life" would seem to stem from a viewpoint that holds forth as a truth the concept that wealth simply exists and flows forth - and is something to be distributed fairly, where pesky things like profit motive simply get in the way.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 04:56 PM
Its somewhat difficult to explain to you because your knowledge base regarding sociology makes explaining things simply difficult since I cannot take anything for granted.

I do find it extremely scary though, that your type of thinking is so widespread.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 05:00 PM

If only that were true. In actuality I am quite conversant with Sociology, including many of the shortcomings of this relatively new and immature field. Especially its tendency to ignore the fact that causality in the real world is highly networked, and simplistic answers/observations are seldom useful.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 05:02 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid


The statement "protecting quality of life"


The statement "protecting quality of life" refers to concept of Greater Good. Society does not exist to protect corporate profit taking and wealth creation, these exist as tools to improve overall standing of individuals participating in the society.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 05:04 PM

Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid


The statement "protecting quality of life"


The statement "protecting quality of life" refers to concept of Greater Good. Society does not exist to protect corporate profit taking and wealth creation, these exist as tools to improve overall standing of individuals participating in the society.


Yes, its just your model of what conditions actually create "greater good" is so misinformed that your conclusions inevitably miss the mark by a wide margin.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 05:15 PM
No, it is rather simple test you should be familiar with - "Are we better off today than we were yesterday?" averaged over whole society.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 06:27 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
----

Point #1: Right or privilege, it still has to be done.


Point #2: Health care demand is inelastic; as a result costs are contained only by ‘net worth’ calculations.


Point #3: Wealth inequality creates a situation where increased profit taking from well-off consumers makes pricing bottom out of the market a profitable and acceptable business decision.

------

You mentioned few key concepts as your objections to single-payer – economies of scale and market price. I addressed market price with Point #2. Let us examine economies of scale.


Delivery of treatment is a fixed cost, no matter if you amputating the leg with a rusty saw or delivering laser brain surgery you still have to pay for training, facility and personnel. Implements do change, but I put them into separate category.

R&D, with US doing something close to 60% of worldwide, is where most of expenses occur. Some of it is publicly funded, but lots of it is private. Covering costs of private research, design and clinical tests is the main source of raising healthcare costs.


Point #4: Health care costs, at least in private sector research and development, are not driven by improving patient outcomes or quality of life but by maximizing profits.



With Point #4 in mind, single-payer will definitely reduce private investment into R&D. I demonstrated that this is not money well-spent, but rather money that can generate return. Single-payer will not produce shortages; nobody will take “will not sell” decision, they will simply take a loss and reduce future R&D.

Do you know why single-payer countries can negotiate lower prices? Well, partially because of ‘collective’ aspect of it, but mostly because of a threat of revoking patents and manufacturing generics. For example, if you refuse to sell a drug to Canada, they have a right to revoke your patent and manufacture generics right away.

This is exactly why we need single-payer in US. To rationally distribute health care. To put controls on run-away healthcare spending. To address Points 1-4.



Ok, so I chopped some of the quote to attempt to make it more readable. Much of what was chopped I think is inaccurate, but lets focus on the core issues:

Basically what you seem to be asserting in a nutshell, is that a combination of price controls and subsidies can solve all our health ills. (pun intended) Historically speaking, that type of economic management has led to a bread line - but lets go point by point.

Point#1 - most of your assertion that were valid regarding this were at the end, what you wrote for point#1 was mostly regarding your point#2. So lets move on to point #2

Point#2 - There are a few key things you bypass and ignore here. First of all, if a new treatment is not much better than the old treatment as you assert is a norm, then why is there a moral deficiency present when some people cannot afford the shiny new treatment?

Second, costs are actually in reality constrained by what Govt and Insurance (whose rates tend to follow Govt because Govt provides them with legal cover) is willing to pay - not what individuals are able to pay.

You also seem to ignore the fact that Supply and Demand is not an "aspect" of a "market economy". Supply and Demand is an absolute. A mistake many people make when doing an economic/social calculus and you appear to make - is confusing Demand for desire. Demand represents ability and willingness to pay as well as desire to pay. All your desire for price controls accomplishes is artificial limitation on demand. This creates economic distortions - more on this later.

Point#3 - This is an unfounded assertion, first and foremost. In fact, even current paradigm has large pharmaceuticals selling bulk, at reduced prices to even the undeveloped world after initial high-end USA market profit-taking. It would probably be fair to say that the rich will in many cases get *first access* to new products. This is true in some instances. Magic Johnson did not survive HIV in an era when it was a death sentence by being a poor nobody. But in most cases, long term strategy of not using developed IP and Mfg capacity simply because it is not as profitable per unit is not a viable business strategy. This is a recurring theme in your posts, but is more a worry than a real issue.

-----

Regarding your first paragraph of part 2, re: my objection to single payer. You absolutely did not address my concerns regarding price. When I talk about the pricing issue, you do not seem to understand what I am talking about - hence my snarky response to your cross-posting of this response in the other thread ( that, and the fact that you felt the snarky need to cross post to elicit a response, even though you took 2 days to respond.)

When I talk about pricing mechanisms, and pricing distortion I am referring to the question of - " How does a central entity properly determine and set price?". Because it cant. The market pricing process is a democratic process, where people literally vote on what a particular product or service is worth. Think of it as the original crowdsourcing. This process sends a signal to the world as to what something is worth, which lets potential suppliers determine if and whether supplying can be profitable and at what degree.

When this process gets disrupted by men with guns who arbitrarily set one unified price, then problems occur. Because the people setting the price, are almost never accurate in assessing the real value. A couple quick cases in point - the current drug shortages that worsen by the year, and the gas shortages in the Sandy aftermath. In the Sandy aftermath, "price gouging" was forbidden. So instead of gas and supplies being very expensive for a day, then prices dropping as new supply rolled in - there were extended shortages. Because the price people were "allowed" to charge did not reflect the extra costs, times and trouble that made shipping and distributing in extra supply worthwhile. So people either suffered without, or payed exorbitant prices from illegal black market.

--

Delivery of treatment is not a fixed cost. Many factors go into this pricing, including skill/schooling level required to provide, location, etc. Your groupings of cost types was also arbitrary and ineffective for the type of cost breakdown you attempted. You need much higher degree of granularity there to make it meaningful.

--

Point#4 - R&D is indeed a large cost. You are also correct in that some money goes to researching treatments as opposed to cures. However, the conclusion that follows from that.... has many untenable aspects.

First of all, there is generally no such thing as wasted health research. Often times breakthroughs come from unexpected places - people researching one thing, will find something that actually relates to a different problem.

Secondly, I demonstrated the correct model why single-payer countries could obtain bulk rates, because they were purchasing from a larger market. If they were trying to arbitrarily set a price, as opposed to buying at market rates then the efficiency would drop dramatically. They would either overpay and be less cost efficient, or underpay and face shortages of supply/quality.

Your assertion that single payer, were it to envelop the larger market - and attempt to set pricing by fiat - would not create shortages is a fallacy. This has been demonstrated by every other attempt at centralized price controls. The idea that a bureaucrat can determine proper value better than a market is pure fantasy. Already drug shortages are rampant in cases where the Federally mandated payout is not sufficient incentive for the drugs to be manufactured.

You argue that the Canada model where forced removal of patents to force companies to sell is a good model. Well, even as you admit your system would reduce R&D... in your world, exactly what new drugs or treatments would be available to be nationalized? If you know ahead of time that the Govt of the previously largest market is simply going to either rip you off, either by underpaying or nationalizing your efforts... what makes you think anything would be developed in the first place?

All the formerly market activity would now devolve into a political battle over what was "fair". There is no way an economy can operate in that environment.

---

You talk about rationally distributing health care. The only rational method, is to get Govt out of the health care business entirely. Health care is not something that springs from nothingness, to be distributed by fiat. It is something that many people must work very hard to provide and those services are not worthless. If we want to continue to have health care available to anyone but the wealthy who fly to non confiscatory countries for medical tourism, we need to immediately reverse course.

----



The Govt intervention in our system is the cause of our current mess. You talk like what we have now is a market system, but few things are further from the truth. Because we do NOT have a market system for health, and have not for some time- this is the cause of the present problems and spiraling costs.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 06:30 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
No, it is rather simple test you should be familiar with - "Are we better off today than we were yesterday?" averaged over whole society.




So in your world, it is ok to wrong a minority if a majority benefit? Why not bring slavery back?
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 08:14 PM
I am not going to agree with your assertions on “market price”. What you describe is ideal-case scenario with unlimited access, perfect information and no outside influences. Buying and selling a sack of grain operates under these rules – there is plenty of grain, there are plenty of buyers, they are generally informed of the price and buyers are not forced to buy sack of grain 2.0 by outside entities regardless of its advantages over regular grain. Reality of health care “markets” is that it is a quagmire of patents, cross-licensing, multi-national regulations and exclusive provider contracts. You can argue that some or most of this is effects of government interference, but I have to point that you can’t possibly eliminate such interference and still have a system that produces safe products and protects investment into R&D.

To demonstrate the effects of above lets follow example of Oxycontin. First developed in 1916 by Bayer, and was still covered by various patents up until 2005! when latest version of the patent was thrown out by Court of Appeals. This is almost NINETY years of patent protection! How is it possible? Mostly it is patent games, generally you patent generic formula that produces low yield, then you patent ‘improvements’ or how you really went about manufacturing it to extend your patent coverage, then you dust off your safety data and publish all risks and patent reformulation that addresses or mitigates them. End result? Generics are kept out of the market for unreasonably long time, and in cases where one could manufacture generics regulation/policy are bought to mandate use of the newer product. Last but not least, you have education bias and kickback collusion schemes where doctors continue prescribing expensive drugs when generic alternatives exist. This example is pharmaceuticals, but it parallels in all other areas.

So why do we not just go with ‘old’ but cheaper versions? As I explained above, in too many circumstances we are prevented from doing so. Also in many instances insurance providers make this decision on your behalf, they cover latest-and-greatest, charge appropriately and ignore much-cheaper generic alternatives. Last but not least, there is demand for latest-and-greatest and since purchasing decision if largely removed from the consumer (insurance decides that for you) at no point is “let’s go with a cheaper generic” is seriously considered.

Point A: Consumer is largely removed from pricing decisions; as such the health care is biased toward latest-and-greatest, even when marginal improvements don’t warrant the additional costs.

Point B: Simplifying complex multi-party interactions to supply & demand leads you to wrong conclusions.

----

How does a central entity, as in single-payer, determine the price? It does it indirectly – it evaluates all possible treatments against its budget and determines the best use of that budget according to best possible outcomes. This results in a system that rationally assigns available dollars toward producing best possible outcome for the entire population, not an individual. If you price your treatment too high, it doesn’t get purchased. Occasionally, if treatment is deemed to be a question of national security (e.g. there is an epidemic, and you hold a patent for vaccine), there are no alternatives, and you are entirely unreasonable in your pricing, then government revokes its protection of your intellectual property in its jurisdiction. At no other point “men with guns” enter this negotiation, but there are plenty of accountants with spreadsheets that do.

As I demonstrated before, such system tends to contain costs and provide universal coverage. Again, single payer is not guaranteed to produce the best outcome for each individual, just the best overall outcome. I am also not opposed to two-tier system, but only as long as individual making purchasing decisions with their own money.

----

As to reduction of R&D under single-payer system. Government also sponsors a substantial portion of medical R&D, US have some of the most productive R&D programs covered with NIST grants. Even if all private research stopped, and it wouldn’t even with the worst case scenario, research and progress will still continue. Alternative that we are living in is having 50+ years old products withheld from the population and complete inability to control costs.

----

Lets not muddy this discussion with talking about price gouging. The other thread is still there, feel free to bump.

----

Since we are now largely talking about healthcare, can you please duplicate your responses to healthcare thread so I have easier time finding them if/when I need to come back to it?
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 09:31 PM
""I am not going to agree with your assertions on “market price”. What you describe is ideal-case scenario with unlimited access, perfect information and no outside influences. Buying and selling a sack of grain operates under these rules – there is plenty of grain, there are plenty of buyers, they are generally informed of the price and buyers are not forced to buy sack of grain 2.0 by outside entities regardless of its advantages over regular grain. Reality of health care “markets” is that it is a quagmire of patents, cross-licensing, multi-national regulations and exclusive provider contracts. You can argue that some or most of this is effects of government interference, but I have to point that you can’t possibly eliminate such interference and still have a system that produces safe products and protects investment into R&D."

As an aside, you apparently have not looked into the grain industry lately. I see your point, but was a bad example.
--
Anyhow, on to the real point.

First of all, the inherent complexity in the market and consequences thereof is something you have backward. The pricing mechanism is *most* important in these complex scenarios. The more complex a supply chain, the more needed open mechanisms are to determining value.

While what you say regarding consumers not being fully informed is true - it does not *need* to be true. It is true in many cases, because the consumers have offloaded that responsibility to others. In the case of Insurance, they pay to have someone else make those decisions. In the case of Govt, the determination can be taken from them.

But there is no compelling blockade to consumers, in conjunction with their personal physician, learning to make rational choices based on simple metrics of known effectiveness vs price vs side effects, etc. Its important to remember that just because a situation exists currently, that it does not necessarily need to exist. In this case, it shouldnt.

---
""How does a central entity, as in single-payer, determine the price? It does it indirectly – it evaluates all possible treatments against its budget and determines the best use of that budget according to best possible outcomes. This results in a system that rationally assigns available dollars toward producing best possible outcome for the entire population, not an individual. If you price your treatment too high, it doesn’t get purchased. Occasionally, if treatment is deemed to be a question of national security (e.g. there is an epidemic, and you hold a patent for vaccine), there are no alternatives, and you are entirely unreasonable in your pricing, then government revokes its protection of your intellectual property in its jurisdiction. At no other point “men with guns” enter this negotiation, but there are plenty of accountants with spreadsheets that do.
""

You say evaluates a treatment against a budget. But how does the determining entity do that, without any pricing data? Secondly, who determines what constitutes a "best" outcome? One persons opinion of "best outcome" is not going to be the same as another. In your scenario, there is no larger market setting the price. Also as noted, R&D would be way down. This sounds an awful lot like a few people making life and death decisions for the many. What prevents these few from simply making decisions that are in their own best interests - as is the status quo of our Govt in most regards for about the past 12 years?

Also, you have not "demonstrated" that such a system contains cost. You have made that assertion, but have made no inroads in modeling such a scenario where that occurs. Large scale systems where this style of intervention has been implemented have failed without exception. Small scale (relative) systems where that type of intervention has been implemented have been shown to be a faulty model for basing predictions of the behavior or larger systems.

""As to reduction of R&D under single-payer system. Government also sponsors a substantial portion of medical R&D, US have some of the most productive R&D programs covered with NIST grants. Even if all private research stopped, and it wouldn’t even with the worst case scenario, research and progress will still continue. Alternative that we are living in is having 50+ years old products withheld from the population and complete inability to control costs.""

Research and progress would certainly slow. Also expect "large sucking sound" as people in the field go somewhere where their activities are profitable.

---

Your argument seems based on two tenets now:

1) That it would "control costs" , while it might technically control the amount of dollars spent.. the human cost in terms of stagnation, waiting lists, shortages, etc would be very high.

2) Private R&D is so inefficient that it is not worth having. Try telling that to a diabetic, an allergy sufferer, a heart attack victim, etc

The only silver lining I see to your plans, is people would start trying very, very hard to keep healthy.

Also, a big part of the cost savings you are looking for could be found if importation of drugs was legal. The pharma industry tries to keep it illegal, so when they charge other countries less US citizens cannot import it for less money. If we just made the rest of the world also help support those R&D costs and not just afterthough profit-taking... our own costs would go down a lot.

Just another example of Govt screwing us. You say that we "can never get govt out of health even if it causes problems so lets embrace govt"... but provide no evidence than even if all your other assumptions were true, that govt would ever work in a way that favors us. It doesn't now, so what would change?
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 10:41 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Daye

How do you go about paying folks a decent wage so they can actually afford to buy the goods that keeps the economy going without killing your own company in the process ?


Daye, this is huge question that probably deserves its own thread.

It boils down to following - as a democratically elected government, should its priority be protecting corporate interests and profits or protecting citizens and their quality of life?



First off we, the USA, are a Representative Republic not a Democracy. Secondly every argument you make has nothing to do with what this country was founded on.
All of your arguments are based on a Socialist or Communist country, so try and not mix the two.

So now that you know what country we are talking about, the priority of the government it to keep out of the way of corporations and the citizens.
The only protecting they need to do is make sure the Constitution is being upheld and that our shores are protected.
There is no distinction between protecting corporations or citizens as they are all citizens.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/20/12 11:33 PM
Originally Posted By: Helemoto

There is no distinction between protecting corporations or citizens as they are all citizens.


What other imaginary entities you count under "all citizens" ?
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/21/12 01:01 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Helemoto

There is no distinction between protecting corporations or citizens as they are all citizens.


What other imaginary entities you count under "all citizens" ?


So to you corporations are autonomous machines and no people own or run them, so that
means they do not need the same protection as humans?

Only a progressive would think like this.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/21/12 01:25 PM
You are dodging, you explicitly told me that corporations are citizens. Where does it say this in the constitution?
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/21/12 11:12 PM
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/22/12 02:14 AM
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.


Actually this is a given, it has been said many times already without being said.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/22/12 03:39 PM
I said this:
Originally Posted By: sini
You are dodging, you explicitly told me that corporations are citizens. Where does it say this in the constitution?


And you had nothing to say but this:
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.


I will take your post as admitting to being wrong, only instead of conceding your position as indefensible you decided to gnash teeth and wail.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/22/12 03:42 PM
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.

Actually this is a given, it has been said many times already without being said.


Are you the new chairman of grave-pissing committee?

I know gnashing teeth and wailing is a default conservative response to being wrong, but you do realize that by being sore loser you only add to my amusement?
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/22/12 04:43 PM
“While what you say regarding consumers not being fully informed is true - it does not *need* to be true.”

Can you elaborate on this point? My understanding is if consumer is detached from the price of the treatment, and insurer operates on percentage margins, then by covering new and expensive treatments they are able to push overall costs up and by doing so increase their profit in absolute numbers without increasing efficiency of profit extraction. The only downward pressure is consumers having to pay higher insurance premiums, but with employer paying most of it, pressure is very minimal.

In traditional sense market would operate along the following decision-making lines – Treatment A(expensive) and Treatment B(affordable) are available. If I pay directly and I can’t afford treatment A, then I will go with treatment B. This puts market pressure on Treatment A to lower price to better compete with Treatment B. This is not how the system currently operates – Treatment A is picked every time, insurers pass the cost to employer who absorbs it into labor costs, and individual consumer has very little say in going with Treatment B. In turn, if employer wants to lower coverage costs, they go with an insurance plan that covers fewer conditions, has higher deductible or lower lifetime max; but if this cheaper plan covers a specific condition, they still go with a Treatment A.

This is why I think employer-sponsored insurance-pool health care is a dysfunctional system. Single payer system would be better. So is everyone paying out of pocket (and influencing prices via market forces) with only major conditions requiring insurance.

---

“Also, you have not "demonstrated" that such a system contains cost. You have made that assertion, but have made no inroads in modeling such a scenario where that occurs. Large scale systems where this style of intervention has been implemented have failed without exception.”

This is not a falsifiable argument, as such it is invalid. See: No True Scotsman fallacy.

If I bring up examples of any other First World country, you will claim (and have in the past) that scale is too small. If I bring up other US-based cases, such as VA or Active Military health care, you will claim it is too different.

Formally: ‘US health care’ is not ‘Other health care’ for all healthcare that is not ‘Other health care’ is not falsifiable as defined.

---

I am not denying that R&D will be affected. While I don’t think effects will be as drastic as you propose, I don’t want to focus our debate on this, and will concede that it will be reduced and leave it ‘reduced’ unspecified.

‘Silver lining’ of my plans is that under single payer employers will be largely free from providing health insurance, as such normalizing labor costs over part and full time. It will also lower overall employment costs, assuming that US is not an outlier and health care costs under single-payer drop to around 10%GDP observed in every other single-payer country. Additionally it will allow greater labor mobility, lessening ‘bennies lock-in’ and will afford more business creation, freeing individuals from concerns of finding individual health coverage.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/23/12 02:29 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.

Actually this is a given, it has been said many times already without being said.


Are you the new chairman of grave-pissing committee?

I know gnashing teeth and wailing is a default conservative response to being wrong, but you do realize that by being sore loser you only add to my amusement?


As you wish.

The default progressive response to being wrong, is to keep repeating the wrong till the liberal media repeats it as the truth.

Ignorant can be corrected, stupid not so much.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/23/12 03:35 AM
Chanting that I am wrong, without anything to back it up with, does not make you right.

My last point was:

Originally Posted By: sini
You are dodging, you explicitly told me that corporations are citizens. Where does it say this in the constitution?


Feel free to address it when you are done with your hysterics.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/23/12 03:19 PM
Who's Really to Blame for the Wal-Mart Strikes?

Quote:
To put these figures in perspective, the federal poverty line for a family of three is $19,090. You would have to work 40 hours a week, every week of the year at Best Buy to clear that figure. Since about 42 percent of low-wage retail employees only work part time, according to a recent study by Demos, it's not a surprise that about a quarter of them live in or near full poverty.

Ultimately, this all comes back to consumers. We are the ones who choose where to take our business. And for the most part, Americans have chosen cheap.

It's hard to blame middle class families for making that decision -- not a lot of people have the extra cash to make a political statement out of where they buy paper towels and diapers. But it's led to cycle of impoverishment, where big box stores have brought down wages at smaller competitors desperate to compete, taking money out of the hands of workers, and sending back up the corporate food chain to shareholders. That's put a burden back on tax payers: research has suggested that Wal-Mart workers are disproportionately reliant on safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid. I wouldn't be surprised if the same goes for Target and Best Buy employees.


Why are we, the tax payers, subsidize Wall Mart labor costs and corporate profits?
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/23/12 04:05 PM
The Corporate Blackmailing Of America Is Now All the Rage

Quote:
Restaurant owners who whine about paying the cost of their employees’ health care are leaving it to you and I to do the job for them with every monthly health insurance premium we pay, thereby subsidizing their bottom lines whether we buy their products or not. How is that not corporate welfare? Oil companies who threaten to take their jobs and go elsewhere if we dare to cut back on their research and development subsidies, all the while pointing the finger at single mothers who get government help.

I’m sorry, but this is nuts.

It is no secret that American patriotism was, for many people, long ago replaced by something these folks consider far more important—personal and shareholder profit.

I like profits. But I also like living in a country where our commitment to the betterment of our nation and the lives of our people takes precedence over the desire to give away a few million pizza pies.

If these companies are permitted to get away with this effort to hold hostage their employees—and the American public at large—in order to get their way because they lost an election…or if they can successfully threaten to pick up their ball and take it to a different field because we might just ask them to forgo some R&D subsidy money for the national betterment…America has a problem far more dramatic than paying an extra fifteen cents for a slab of carbohydrate drenched in sugar filled tomato sauce and then covered with artery clogging meat.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/23/12 07:36 PM
Target, Walmart, and Other Big-Box Stores Abolish Thanksgiving.
Quote:
At Walmart, Target, and numerous other large retailers, Black Friday has become Black Thursday—a day that's much darker because it puts corporate profits ahead of, well, pretty much everything else that our country is supposed to care about.

Take the example of Greg Fletcher, a member of the overnight crew at a Walmart in East LA. On the night before Thanksgiving he will work a 12-hour shift, from 5 p.m. to 5 a.m. His wife, who also works at the store, must be there from 3 p.m. on Thanksgiving day until midnight. "For families like the Fletchers, there really won't be a Thanksgiving this year," said Dawn Le, a spokeswoman for Making Change at Walmart, a campaign working to unionize this and other Walmart stores.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/23/12 08:22 PM

Thats sad to hear and all, but I sure wouldnt support forcing stores to change via the barrel of a gun. As far as I know, noone is forcing people to work at gunpoint.

That so many people have no option but to work at a place like Wal-Mart is largely a byproduct of the policies supported by those who, ironically, want to *force* the stores to change their ways.

Such is the irony of life.

I will reply on the main health care thread soon, mostly just enjoying holiday weekend.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 12:23 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Chanting that I am wrong, without anything to back it up with, does not make you right.

My last point was:

Originally Posted By: sini
You are dodging, you explicitly told me that corporations are citizens. Where does it say this in the constitution?


Feel free to address it when you are done with your hysterics.


Well to address the guy who really goes into hysterics and gets his pegina wrapped in his panties, corporations are made by citizens so that makes the citizen a corporations so then the corporation is made by a citizen the corporation is owned by a citizen so that would make the corporation a citizen. As for where is says it in the Constitution, I notice you never capitalize that evil progressive word, I never said it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood. Courts have.
I do not dodge anything I leave that to the master poster that you are, I have asked you many ? and have never received a answer.

The fact that you don't think companies have rights makes you look like a fool.

The whole BLACK FRIDAY is or was the day that made or broke companies profits, so it is a very important day to retailers.
These people know that black Friday comes every year and this is how the retailers who make money to keep them in a job do
business.
These are private companies and you nor I have a right to tell them how to do business, well we do, use your wallet, or man purse.

Now we all know that as a progressive you want to make every company you see into a bad light to try and prove your warped way
of thinking as evidence that your are right makes me laugh.

Lets take away all the big evil mean companies you hate and see how long we last.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 01:48 AM
Originally Posted By: Derid
As far as I know, noone is forcing people to work at gunpoint.


So you are advocating absolving personal responsibility and expansion of a welfare state? Shocking.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 02:04 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
As far as I know, noone is forcing people to work at gunpoint.


So you are advocating absolving personal responsibility and expansion of a welfare state? Shocking.


That is an.... extremely odd way to read that, to say the least.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 04:10 AM
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
As far as I know, noone is forcing people to work at gunpoint.


So you are advocating absolving personal responsibility and expansion of a welfare state? Shocking.


That is an.... extremely odd way to read that, to say the least.



So what is there other than welfare? I mean, you don't support people getting livable wage from working, you must support them getting welfare? Or are you suggesting they just live under the bridges and starve to death?
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 04:19 AM
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Originally Posted By: sini
Chanting that I am wrong, without anything to back it up with, does not make you right.

My last point was:

Originally Posted By: sini
You are dodging, you explicitly told me that corporations are citizens. Where does it say this in the constitution?


Feel free to address it when you are done with your hysterics.


Well to address the guy who really goes into hysterics and gets his pegina wrapped in his panties, corporations are made by citizens so that makes the citizen a corporations so then the corporation is made by a citizen the corporation is owned by a citizen so that would make the corporation a citizen. As for where is says it in the Constitution, I notice you never capitalize that evil progressive word, I never said it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood. Courts have.
I do not dodge anything I leave that to the master poster that you are, I have asked you many ? and have never received a answer.

The fact that you don't think companies have rights makes you look like a fool.

The whole BLACK FRIDAY is or was the day that made or broke companies profits, so it is a very important day to retailers.
These people know that black Friday comes every year and this is how the retailers who make money to keep them in a job do
business.
These are private companies and you nor I have a right to tell them how to do business, well we do, use your wallet, or man purse.

Now we all know that as a progressive you want to make every company you see into a bad light to try and prove your warped way
of thinking as evidence that your are right makes me laugh.

Lets take away all the big evil mean companies you hate and see how long we last.


No, corporate personhood, no matter how you stretch it, does not mean corporations are citizens. It means that corporations can legally own property. Read your own link.

Citizenship for corporations? You are out of your fucking mind if you believe/advocate this garbage. There is no polite way to put it, nor do you deserve any after running your mouth.

Let me put it in terms you could understand. Citizenship means you get to vote. It means you get to get drafted, get married or go to jail. Only people can be citizens.

At the end of the day corporations are imaginary constructs, just like square root of a negative number, they don't exist outside of paper. When you have decisions that involve rights of individual citizens and rights of corporations, individual rights should win every single time.
Posted By: Donkleaps Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 07:36 AM
I love you guys.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 11:25 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
As far as I know, noone is forcing people to work at gunpoint.


So you are advocating absolving personal responsibility and expansion of a welfare state? Shocking.


That is an.... extremely odd way to read that, to say the least.



So what is there other than welfare? I mean, you don't support people getting livable wage from working, you must support them getting welfare? Or are you suggesting they just live under the bridges and starve to death?


Entrepreneurship, finding better job, working multiple jobs, hitting up private charity of which there is plenty.

But like I said before, just about any wage is a livable wage - people just need to self organize into collectives to pool resources. Such as young people / people in school already typically do.

Your force employers to do X at gunpoint/else people are welfare recipients is a false dichotomy. You personally might not savor the idea of having 3 roomates, but that does not mean violence is the answer to ensure that noone ever has to do it.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 02:16 PM
So return of company towns and Indentured servitude?

This isn't 1800s anymore, 40 hours work week and livable wage are expected. Anything more for any less pay is offloading costs on the taxpayers.

Again, places that do not pay livable wage have thier labor costs subsidized by taxpayers via welfare.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 03:35 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Originally Posted By: sini
Chanting that I am wrong, without anything to back it up with, does not make you right.

My last point was:

Originally Posted By: sini
You are dodging, you explicitly told me that corporations are citizens. Where does it say this in the constitution?


Feel free to address it when you are done with your hysterics.


Well to address the guy who really goes into hysterics and gets his pegina wrapped in his panties, corporations are made by citizens so that makes the citizen a corporations so then the corporation is made by a citizen the corporation is owned by a citizen so that would make the corporation a citizen. As for where is says it in the Constitution, I notice you never capitalize that evil progressive word, I never said it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood. Courts have.
I do not dodge anything I leave that to the master poster that you are, I have asked you many ? and have never received a answer.

The fact that you don't think companies have rights makes you look like a fool.

The whole BLACK FRIDAY is or was the day that made or broke companies profits, so it is a very important day to retailers.
These people know that black Friday comes every year and this is how the retailers who make money to keep them in a job do
business.
These are private companies and you nor I have a right to tell them how to do business, well we do, use your wallet, or man purse.

Now we all know that as a progressive you want to make every company you see into a bad light to try and prove your warped way
of thinking as evidence that your are right makes me laugh.

Lets take away all the big evil mean companies you hate and see how long we last.


No, corporate personhood, no matter how you stretch it, does not mean corporations are citizens. It means that corporations can legally own property. Read your own link.

Citizenship for corporations? You are out of your fucking mind if you believe/advocate this garbage. There is no polite way to put it, nor do you deserve any after running your mouth.

Let me put it in terms you could understand. Citizenship means you get to vote. It means you get to get drafted, get married or go to jail. Only people can be citizens.

At the end of the day corporations are imaginary constructs, just like square root of a negative number, they don't exist outside of paper. When you have decisions that involve rights of individual citizens and rights of corporations, individual rights should win every single time.


You only hear what you want to hear, and that is way you are ignorant.
You didn't read shit or you wouldn't have posted more of your open mouth breathing text.
My imaginary construct pays my salary, so I am assuming it is not imaginary.
The point behind corporations having rights is they need protection from fucking morons just like the rest of us.
Morons that think people should be taxed by how they make the money not by how much they make, or morons that think what ever
comes out of their mouths is the truth no matter if it will destroy how and why this country was made.
Morons think that corporations popped up out of now where and need no protection from other morons that want something
for nothing, and some of those morons think that by arguing, its not the 1800's makes sense, or morons that think
all jobs should pay a "livable wage". Well I say welcome to the real world, not all jobs can pay 50k plus benefits.
We need ditch diggers and burger flippers, guess who gets more in the weekly check.
Got to love morons who get but hurt when some one starts from scratch and makes it big.
Most of those morons would fight to keep what they earned if they were not to busy being morons.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 03:38 PM
Originally Posted By: Donkleaps
I love you guys.


Its all in fun, for me anyways.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 05:23 PM
Helemoto, adding "morons" to your posts does not make it any more true. Corporations are not citizens, corporate personhood does not grant corporations citizenship and views like yours (e.g. citizens united) only detract from freedoms of REAL flesh and blood citizens that CONSTITUTION was written about/for.

Oh, by the way, you are still WRONG, corporations are no more citizens than my garden gnomes are.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 07:00 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
So return of company towns and Indentured servitude?

This isn't 1800s anymore, 40 hours work week and livable wage are expected. Anything more for any less pay is offloading costs on the taxpayers.

Again, places that do not pay livable wage have thier labor costs subsidized by taxpayers via welfare.


Need to cut back on that welfare in that case. But like I said, its already livable so its a moot point. Think roomates.com instead of indentured servitude, you really think up the strangest things sometimes.

Just because something is "expected" doesnt give you a right to stick a gun in someones face and force people to do what you think is right and proper in regards to how they run their business.

It really is sad that the left in general thinks violently enforcing their opinions on everyone will somehow solve societies ills. Unfortunately, the side effects of those efforts are going to entirely unwind the fabric of our society.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 08:33 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Just because something is "expected" doesnt give you a right to stick a gun in someones face and force people to do what you think is right and proper in regards to how they run their business.


We are still talking about living above poverty line while gainfully employed full-time, right?
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 10:33 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid

Just because something is "expected" doesnt give you a right to stick a gun in someones face and force people to do what you think is right and proper in regards to how they run their business.


We are still talking about living above poverty line while gainfully employed full-time, right?


We are talking about the methods used to achieve your lofty goals.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 10:44 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Helemoto, adding "morons" to your posts does not make it any more true. Corporations are not citizens, corporate personhood does not grant corporations citizenship and views like yours (e.g. citizens united) only detract from freedoms of REAL flesh and blood citizens that CONSTITUTION was written about/for.

Oh, by the way, you are still WRONG, corporations are no more citizens than my garden gnomes are.



Nope I am not wrong.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 10:52 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid

Just because something is "expected" doesnt give you a right to stick a gun in someones face and force people to do what you think is right and proper in regards to how they run their business.


We are still talking about living above poverty line while gainfully employed full-time, right?


Once again for him its all or nothing, there is no middle. He thinks that if you have a non-livable wage as he defines it
you are automatically on welfare. For him this must be how he sees the world, your rich or poor.
Never mind kids that live at home, people who get part time jobs for extra money and don't want or need a full time job
its just rich or poor for him.

This is why his arguments are bullshit because he doesn't allow for these things.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/24/12 11:59 PM
For sinij: Anatomy of the State

Quick and simple primer on what the State is, and how it works. I do not agree with everything Rothbard wrote during his career by a long shot, but this is one of his best works.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/30/12 03:11 PM
McJobs Should Pay, Too: Inside Fast-Food Workers' Historic Protest For Living Wages

Quote:
The term "McJob" has come to epitomize all that's wrong with the low-wage service industry jobs that are growing part of the U.S economy. "It beats flipping burgers," the cliché goes, because no matter what your job might be, it's assumed to be better than working in a fast-food restaurant.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that seven out of 10 growth occupations over the next decade will be low-wage fields. And these jobs are not being done by teenagers. Across the country, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28, and women -- who make up two-thirds of the industry -- are over 32, according to the BLS.




Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 11/30/12 04:30 PM
You cant seem to see the forest through the trees here.

Fast food jobs not being done mostly by teenagers anymore signals problems elsewhere. Trying to fix it by focusing on the practices of the fast food joints is the wrong approach.

If you are focusing on making fast food jobs better jobs, because more adults are relying on them you are focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is that the job market in general is so bad that more and more people have to try for fast food jobs.

Also, many immigrants end up working fast food now. Need to control for immigrants as well when citing age statistics. If someone comes all the way here to work in fast food because its better than what they had in their homeland, thats fine. And it doesnt mean we should do anything about fast food wages due to that either.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/01/12 03:38 PM
I disagree with your premise that this is "wrong" problem. Government should not be involved in dictating what kind of jobs should be there, but it absolutely should get involved in making sure that with jobs that are available, workers are treated fairly.

Why?

Couple reasons: a) Taxpayers end up on a hook for difference between livable wage and what corporations pay b) Corporations act in a monopolistic manner and actively engage in practices of suppressing wages (price fixing) c) Government elected by people for people, multinational corporate interests are distant second.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/01/12 07:01 PM

Your idea of "fair" and mine are apparently irreconcilable. Employer saying "we need people to do X job for Y pay, is anyone willing?" is entirely fair.

If overqualified people are feeling it necessary to take up those jobs because the rest of the economy is so bad, then obviously the solution is not to twist the arms of the fast food joints but to address the issues preventing the economy from proper functioning.

Even if there WAS a leftist "solution" to fast food wages, the opportunity cost is way to high to even think about looking there for the solution.

You say "corporations" lots of food joints are actually independently owned, even franchises are independently owned and the owners just pay a franchise fee. Left wing solutions lack real world credibility.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/01/12 08:18 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Employer saying "we need people to do X job for Y pay, is anyone willing?" is entirely fair.


It never works this way. It is almost always (at least in service) "lets keep wages down to Y pay, no matter what". Service job model is rotten to the core, it does operate according to natural monopoly lines, and it is not an open market.

Do you believe that job well done should be rewarded? Well these companies don't, they only care to keep wages down.

Quote:
Left wing solutions lack real world credibility.

Right wing "solution" sacrifice Opportunity, Fairness and Getting Ahead with Hard Work on the altar of corporate profit.

Your position of "this guy doesn't deserve to eat/wear clothing/shelter despite working hard so multinationals can make more profit" is simply perverse.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 12:32 AM

Like I said, right now you are seriously lacking in Real World credibility.

The problem is not that fast food pays to little. The problem is the lefties and neocons have so screwed up our economy that anyone is even THINKING to complain about fast food jobs - only because suddenly many people are trying to actually survive on them in non-supervisory positions.

My solutions arent "right wing" anyhow, its just plain common sense.

In the *best* case scenario if you got to be King, is fast food joints would pay more.. but operate with half the people. People would seriously have to bust tail to keep their job, to the point where folks who dont move so quick or function so well would be comepletely jobless.

Thats not even factoring in all the restaurants that would close due to lower sales/higher costs. I actually worked in the industry quite a bit when I was younger, I know how restaurants work apparently a lot better than you. It is apparent you do not even have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about, and even trying to explain it to you would take forever and most likely be futile. You seem to be laboring under some illusion that your typical food shack could afford to pay people 15$/hr to drop fries in a deep fryer or run a cash register.

Someone who expects the almighty hands of those with the guns to descend and solve all problems, does not understand the true nature of the problems.

Also, as I said - great many, majority actually, of restaurants are not corporate owned. Yet you still ramble on about your perception of corporate profit. News flash, forcing people to work - including by starting a business, for any reason but to empower themselves is immoral.

Second news flash - people who make careers out of food service and actually are good at the jobs typically make fine wages, because they either move into management positions or become skilled cooks. And if you have never worked in food, then just take my word for it - there is a huge difference in levels of cook. Skilled cooks are actually always in demand, and thus have reasonably high wages.

Also the numbers you cited earlier cover servers, and at any decent place the servers make good money on tips. Also, the vast vast majority of servers report only enough of their tips to the IRS to technically put them at or slightly above minimum wage - because if they didnt theyd be fired. In reality they typically make far more money than ever gets reported to any govt agency. And more power to em.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 03:57 AM
Quote:
You seem to be laboring under some illusion that your typical food shack could afford to pay people 15$/hr to drop fries in a deep fryer or run a cash register.


Absolutely they can. Looking at the stock price and financial reports, it does not appear that any of these mega-corps are in any danger of going out of business.

Your argument is demonstrably invalid.

Someone at Forbes run the numbers during Papa Jones debacle and concluded that comprehensive healthcare coverage would cost 4c per slice more.

Plus it isn't just fast food - it is fast food and retail. This is big chunk of all employment even during good times.

Are we also expected to tip cashiers at WallMart? Because we already do with out tax payer money, when they inevitably get social payments for not making enough money to get above poverty line.

You are yet to address why the Taxpayer should be subsidizing wages, where corporations set them knowingly to below-livable level and expect us to pay the rest via social programs?
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 04:01 AM
Well, I think we've just discovered the root cause of all our disagreements. Sini lives in Lala land.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 04:08 AM
Kaotic, you would call anywhere outside of your right-wing fever swamp a la-la land.

Trying to apply market forces to a basic livable wage is like trying to regulate price of gold - you are just doing it wrong.

None of you market sycophants even want to consider the fact that we are discussing involves a whole lot more than simply employee-employer transaction, and are overall costs are much greater and end up being offloaded to the system.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 04:32 AM
Get back to me about my sycophantic belief in the universality of market principles after you've spent some time in the real world and have some clue what it takes to run a business, pay your employees what they are worth, provide healthcare for them, obey all OSHA and EPA rules and regulations, keep your investors happy, negotiate effectively with your suppliers, pay your ridiculously high taxes, and deliver a reasonable bottom line (because that's how you get paid), all while providing a quality product at a reasonable price.

Until you demonstrate a reasonable understanding of how things work in the real world none of your high-minded leftist ideology nonsense is going to impress any of us.
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 06:14 AM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic

Until you demonstrate a reasonable understanding of how things work in the real world none of your high-minded leftist ideology nonsense is going to impress any of us.


BINGO!
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 09:17 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Quote:
You seem to be laboring under some illusion that your typical food shack could afford to pay people 15$/hr to drop fries in a deep fryer or run a cash register.


Absolutely they can. Looking at the stock price and financial reports, it does not appear that any of these mega-corps are in any danger of going out of business.

Your argument is demonstrably invalid.

Someone at Forbes run the numbers during Papa Jones debacle and concluded that comprehensive healthcare coverage would cost 4c per slice more.

Plus it isn't just fast food - it is fast food and retail. This is big chunk of all employment even during good times.



You are yet to address why the Taxpayer should be subsidizing wages, where corporations set them knowingly to below-livable level and expect us to pay the rest via social programs?


Um, no. And no. Your refusal to think anything through prevents you from getting a clear picture of how this works. You see a macro report and make assumptions that fit your predjudice, you obviously have no idea how things work on the store level. And it was the CEO of PapaJ himself who wrote what the increased input cost would be. Plus I do not get the impression this is not about Obamacare, you want everyone to make a lot more money in general.

As to the taxpayer picking up the bill - you seem to think twice as many people picking up full govt ride is better as opposed to fewer people picking up a partial govt ride. I find that silly.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 02:49 PM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
I walked uphill both ways, knee deep in the snow in the middle of July, so I am special because I have some secret knowledge.


Okkkkkaay.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 03:03 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid


Um, no. And no. Your refusal to think anything through prevents you from getting a clear picture of how this works.


More magical thinking on your part. If only I though about it more, I'd find despicable conservative point of view more agreeable? Don't think so. It takes a special kind of a character flaw to tell people they don't deserve to eat/shelter/clothing for an honest day of work.

Quote:
You see a macro report and make assumptions that fit your predjudice, you obviously have no idea how things work on the store level.


So you think these reports were cooked? Because they show profitable corporations that (often) pay healthy dividends. I have been holding stocks of a number of these companies, and they have been nothing but stellar though this recession and largely shielded that portion of my assets from the effects of the market downturn.

How it works on the store level DOES NOT MATTER outside of store level. Sure, some franchise lease holder could be squeezed by corp along with employees, but that does not change fundamental math of profits - there is plenty out there and fast food corps are not in any danger of going out of business.

Quote:
As to the taxpayer picking up the bill - you seem to think twice as many people picking up full govt ride is better as opposed to fewer people picking up a partial govt ride. I find that silly.


I find it silly that such 'small government'/'market force' advocate as you would not admit that if we were to remove government subsidies via social nets, then almost nobody would work at these jobs, because you can't meet life needs with what you get paid.

Have you considered that these below-poverty paying jobs creating vicious cycle? You pay less, people have less to spend, it puts pressure to lower prices on everything and results in more outsourcing and more low paying jobs. On top of that, next generation grows up in poverty and with parents working full time, have opportunities greatly reduced and are going to go back into feeding this vicious cycle.

Even Ford understood that you have to pay enough your workers so they can afford one of your cars. Why have this knowledge was lost?
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 04:35 PM
The more people you have with jobs,the more tax revenue you collect. The Government can't add $9 million jobs. However Government can impact how many jobs that are created in the private sector by Implications from regulation & taxes.

We need solid regulation and taxes. To much or not enough of either doesn't help, this is why It needs to be balanced. Like other laws our regulation has no teeth and some could be considered a joke.

Cut the red tape of regulation add more bite to limited regulation when it is abused and you will find a better outcome in the end, every person that could be affected including environment would be better protected.

The only reason to have more Government regulation would only to be to hire more people. The effects of having more people in regulation not only slows down job creation, it could stop it. You don't have to be some kind of evil genius to know this, common sense should do that!
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 05:08 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
I'm going to stick my head in the sand and ignore all real world evidence/experience that refutes my ideological paradigm
Enjoy Lala land :)
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 05:54 PM
Economist on minimum wages

Quote:
Labour markets probably aren't perfectly competitive. Various frictions—like the cost to a worker of trying to find a different job at a firm that's also willing to hire him—can give employers some monopsony power, allowing them to appropriate some of the producer surplus that might otherwise be captured by workers.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/02/12 08:28 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid


Um, no. And no. Your refusal to think anything through prevents you from getting a clear picture of how this works.


More magical thinking on your part. If only I though about it more, I'd find despicable conservative point of view more agreeable? Don't think so. It takes a special kind of a character flaw to tell people they don't deserve to eat/shelter/clothing for an honest day of work.

Quote:
You see a macro report and make assumptions that fit your predjudice, you obviously have no idea how things work on the store level.


So you think these reports were cooked? Because they show profitable corporations that (often) pay healthy dividends. I have been holding stocks of a number of these companies, and they have been nothing but stellar though this recession and largely shielded that portion of my assets from the effects of the market downturn.

How it works on the store level DOES NOT MATTER outside of store level. Sure, some franchise lease holder could be squeezed by corp along with employees, but that does not change fundamental math of profits - there is plenty out there and fast food corps are not in any danger of going out of business.

Quote:
As to the taxpayer picking up the bill - you seem to think twice as many people picking up full govt ride is better as opposed to fewer people picking up a partial govt ride. I find that silly.


I find it silly that such 'small government'/'market force' advocate as you would not admit that if we were to remove government subsidies via social nets, then almost nobody would work at these jobs, because you can't meet life needs with what you get paid.

Have you considered that these below-poverty paying jobs creating vicious cycle? You pay less, people have less to spend, it puts pressure to lower prices on everything and results in more outsourcing and more low paying jobs. On top of that, next generation grows up in poverty and with parents working full time, have opportunities greatly reduced and are going to go back into feeding this vicious cycle.

Even Ford understood that you have to pay enough your workers so they can afford one of your cars. Why have this knowledge was lost?


No, no magical thinking here - only you digging deeper and deeper by showing how inadequate your knowledge of the subject is.

Your non sequitur regarding falsified reports further reinforces this.

As I said, you see a report and make an *assumption*. A very poor one at that. You seem to have no comprehension on how that money was actually made. A quick example for you:

Store chain A has 1000 stores and they are all profitable. Each store returns 20k/yr profit - chain profits 20mil a year. Something happens that makes each store UN-profitable. Suddenly chain is losing money. Expand or condense numbers involved to match scenario. What happens on the store level is EVERYTHING. A chain without healthy individual stores is no longer a healthy or profitable chain.

Also, if govt subsidies were removed - people would still work at those jobs. Because believe it or not, you actually can meet life needs working those jobs. You do not seem to want to believe it, but mine own two eyes have seen it countless times. You just do not know what you are talking about. I did it myself when I was younger, and no - no govt or welfare etc involved.

BTW - workers at fast food joints do in fact make enough money to buy fast food. Not sure where you are finding relevance in the Ford comparison.

All the real world evidence is against you here. Unlike you apparently, most of us have seen it or lived it first hand at one point or another.

All this without even getting into inflation, and relative value mess that would be created.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/03/12 12:57 AM
Stop waving heads in the air, it is embarrassing to watch. The only lack here is willingness to look past ideology and it is mostly on your part.

I understand enough about economics to understand when profit is put ahead of human well being.

You are simply out of touch if you think the only reason someone would disagree with your point of view is for lack of understanding. I can clearly see you sacrificing principles, character and social contract on the Austrian altar of profit.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/03/12 01:22 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Stop waving heads in the air

The only person here doing anything with his head other than thinking, is you and your repeated desire to plug yours firmly in the sand.

Profit is always put ahead of human well being in a successful business, but that doesn't mean that the business owner/manager doesn't care about his people and work damn hard to take care of them. A good manager recognizes the value of good employees and works hard to keep and promote them, or else he spends too much money training and retraining new people. That is a recipe for failure. Human well being is taken care of by the profit motivator. If the world ran on rainbows and lollipops then perhaps we could pay people 1,000,000 rainbowpops per year and everyone would walk around in a fog of lollipop farts. However, profit is the motivation for anyone to start a business and hire people to work for them.

The bottom line is, if you don't like profit, then start your own business, hire 1,000 people (hell I'll make it easy, only hire 10), pay them all $75/hour, give them the best insurance money can buy and see how long your business lasts. Maybe then you'll recognize that employment is just a happy biproduct of a successful business, and that businesses do not, in fact, exist to provide for the general welfare of humans.

Get back to us when you realize how the real world works.

p.s. - None of us are working off of an ideological view. We are all expressing (in what seems like rational sentences, but must be Greek for all of your understanding) real world observations based on practical experience and a fundamental understanding of economics that you seem to lack.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/03/12 04:11 AM
In this case, you real world credo is nothing but a bunch of hot air. Individual manager experience tells you _nothing_ about how large corporations operate. You can actually make a case that small mom&pop shops are the only ones that are subject to market forces - the rest, like Wall Mart or McDonalds are not. They are large enough to create monopsony on jobs and artificially suppress wages.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/03/12 05:11 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
In this case, you real world credo is nothing but a bunch of hot air. Individual manager experience tells you _nothing_ about how large corporations operate. You can actually make a case that small mom&pop shops are the only ones that are subject to market forces - the rest, like Wall Mart or McDonalds are not. They are large enough to create monopsony on jobs and artificially suppress wages.


Rich coming from someone who has apparently only experienced the actual "business" part of business by looking at SEC filings on their investments.

If you think Wal Mart has a monopoly on anything, let alone the power to set wages..

The irony is the only person here on this particular topic whos views are powered by ideology is you. The way you talk on this subject hs me wondering if you have even ever known anyone IRL who lived working retail/food.

You should stick to subjects you know something about.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/05/12 06:51 PM
Papa John's, Applebee's And Others Pay Huge Price For Anti-Obamacare Politicking

[haha]
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/06/12 08:10 PM
The End of Middle Class Growth

Quote:
The economy no longer reliably and consistently transmits productivity gains to workers. The result is that many millions of Americans, in particular less-skilled men, are leaving the workforce, a phenomenon the country has never seen before on the present scale.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/06/12 09:32 PM
That is actually a very good article.

I still want to finish my analysis on this issue, we have discussed it before - but I am missing some data and cant prove my hypothesis without it. Maybe I will look again this weekend and see if I can find what I need.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/07/12 02:13 AM
\


Call me when you have numbers showing they lost money, all that shows is a rating drop from something I never even heard of.
What's the HUGE PRICE they paid?
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/10/12 05:07 AM
more Walmart employees on Medicaid, food stamps than other companies

Quote:
In state after state, the largest group of Medicaid recipients is Walmart employees. I'm sure that the same thing is true of food stamp recipients. Each Walmart ‘associate’ costs the taxpayers an average of more than $1,000 in public assistance," Grayson wrote
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/10/12 08:58 AM
I will see that Wal Mart article and raise you one

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...althcare-costs/

Maybe should have called it the Unaffordable Care Act

Of course many of us saw this coming.
Bottom line: world has some shitty things in it. Wal Mart execs are asshats. Govt intervention tends to fail, even when it is well intentioned.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/10/12 08:04 PM
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/econ...tors_picks=true

When Govt gets involved in micromanaging society, powerful actors in society divert their resources to influencing Govt.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/11/12 12:41 AM
Originally Posted By: Derid
I will see that Wal Mart article and raise you one

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...althcare-costs/

Maybe should have called it the Unaffordable Care Act


I have read this article too, it is not at all surprising that you decided to blame ACA instead of Walmart for skirting social responsibility.

Especially hypocritical is whole "corporations are there to make profits, so lets offload our employment costs on taxpayers" thing that you tend to ignore.

For the record - I agree with Rick Ungar. Make sure to read comments section.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/11/12 01:15 AM

Reality is reality. Reality is impossible for Govt to predict. Such low level micromanagement is typically doomed. As in most cases, Govt had benign intent that ends with poor real consequences. Thats how it typically works, due to the fundamental incapability of Govt to micromanage societal change. It doesnt work. If it did work, and the world could be made a better place with active social violence, I would be right there with you.

It doesnt, so I'm not.

Also, nothing hypocritical at all - thats a non sequitur on your part - at least as a general rule. Because its not necessarily the corporations pushing for Govt to subsidize low wages. If a terrorist takes a hostage and demands a ransom from you and you do not pay the ransom, so the terrorist kills the hostage - whose fault it is? Yours for not paying the ransom, or the terrorist for taking the action?

I do not ignore that situation at all, I just assign blame where blame is due - on the Govt. However, I also think that in the grand scheme of things... I would rather have employed people being partially subsidized as opposed to unemployed people being fully subsidized. Plus its not like every, or even a majority of workers are subsidized - though it is a significant number. Would be interesting to see who is getting subsidized... my hypothesis is that is is mostly people who pop out dozens of kids despite being dirt poor. The Govt has decided to subsidize that behavior, but I dont mind that so much if those people also hold jobs and pay what they can. /shrug

In this particular case I do agree that Wal Mart is very hypocritical though ,because those fucktards actually politically backed Obamacare.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/11/12 04:07 AM
Do you are least acknowledge that government should not be subsidizing wages of profitable corporations? You have been running from this point for a while, perhaps you should address it for a change.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/11/12 04:51 AM



Originally Posted By: sini
Do you are least acknowledge that government should not be subsidizing wages of profitable corporations? You have been running from this point for a while, perhaps you should address it for a change.


I do not ignore that situation at all, I just assign blame where blame is due - on the Govt. However, I also think that in the grand scheme of things... I would rather have employed people being partially subsidized as opposed to unemployed people being fully subsidized. Plus its not like every, or even a majority of workers are subsidized - though it is a significant number. Would be interesting to see who is getting subsidized... my hypothesis is that is is mostly people who pop out dozens of kids despite being dirt poor. The Govt has decided to subsidize that behavior, but I dont mind that so much if those people also hold jobs and pay what they can. /shrug

----------------------------------

I did address it.

Still, like I indicated previously - leaving aside all the bologna like ending part time work, and with some possible caveats - I would entertain raising minimum wage. My biggest worry there is rising housing and food costs, but if it was done incrementally in a sane manner I think it would be reasonably safe.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/11/12 02:29 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Still, like I indicated previously - leaving aside all the bologna like ending part time work, and with some possible caveats - I would entertain raising minimum wage. My biggest worry there is rising housing and food costs, but if it was done incrementally in a sane manner I think it would be reasonably safe.


I will address you other point at a later time.

As to minimum wage, have you looked up some of the references I mentioned in this thread? There is on-going research that suggests minimum wage/inflation link isn't as strong as traditional thinking goes, at least within current operational parameters of it being historically (when adjusted for inflation) lows. My personal opinion - just like with cutting taxes, keeping minimum wages down run its course and well into diminishing returns territory.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/11/12 04:25 PM
Forbes on Corporate Social Responsibility
Posted By: Daye Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/11/12 09:39 PM
Most government intentions are in the right place, the size and bureaucracy of it are usually what cause the failures.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/14/12 02:36 PM
Darden's "Worst" 401(k) Gets Even Uglier

Quote:
The 401(k) retirement savings plan the company crafted for its employees, which participants pay Wells Fargo over $700,000 annually to administer, was rated as one of the three worst in the nation. With an average retirement account balance of only $3,900...

Darden’s workers will enter into retirement with virtually no 401(k) assets. When they do, it may be tempting to blame them for failing to work harder, save more, or make better investment decisions—such as avoiding the stock of their employer. However, in my opinion, Darden itself, having stacked the deck against their employees, bears most of the blame. Let no one feign surprise when these hundreds of thousands of workers join the ranks of the elderly poor.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/19/12 02:56 PM
McDonalds forces hourly slaves to toil on Christmas
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/20/12 12:25 AM
\

So a company that is open on a Christian holiday is now evil.
You of all people I thought would applaud this.

Do you also hate the Chinese for keeping the buffet open?
Or how about the Jewish who keep open their business?
You must hate a lot of people.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/20/12 03:28 AM
Yes, because Christmas in Western culture is all about worshiping Christ, and not about family celebration. Plus all these workers - they really don't like spending time with family.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/20/12 03:51 AM
So then are we to assume that on Christmas you always stay home, never drive anywhere, nor do you shop for anything or take in a movie?
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/20/12 04:24 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Yes, because Christmas in Western culture is all about worshiping Christ, and not about family celebration. Plus all these workers - they really don't like spending time with family.


Who said everyone worships Christ?
You say McDonalds is bad because they are open for business on Christmas.
I said they are catering to all non Christians.

Learn to be consistent.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/20/12 01:49 PM
I understand sarcasm is hard to detect without social cues , so "all about worshiping Christ" was a sarcastic remark. Most people don't even go to church on Christmas Eve.

This could be any holiday, being forced to work on holidays is another way corporations put profit ahead worker's well-being. With union-busting going on in US expect return of 7 days a week 10+ hour work weeks and no paid holidays. Why? Because it is more profitable this way.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 12/20/12 02:01 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
I understand sarcasm is hard to detect without social cues , so "all about worshiping Christ" was a sarcastic remark. Most people don't even go to church on Christmas Eve.

This could be any holiday, being forced to work on holidays is another way corporations put profit ahead worker's well-being. With union-busting going on in US expect return of 7 days a week 10+ hour work weeks and no paid holidays. Why? Because it is more profitable this way.


This is wishful progressive thinking. No companies are going to 7 day 10 hours a day, most will not pay that kind of overtime.
Do you make these things up or is there a site you visit that tells you what to say?
foil

There are maybe 2 holidays in the year that most stores are closed, and this has been for along time, not just lately.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 03/25/13 08:14 PM
Retail can pay a living wage

Quote:
The average American cashier makes $20,230 a year, a salary that in a single-earner household would leave a family of four living under the poverty line. But if he works the cash registers at QuikTrip, it's an entirely different story. The convenience-store and gas-station chain offers entry-level employees an annual salary of around $40,000, plus benefits. Those high wages didn't stop QuikTrip from prospering in a hostile economic climate.

Many employers believe that one of the best ways to raise their profit margin is to cut labor costs. But companies like QuikTrip, the grocery-store chain Trader Joe's, and Costco Wholesale are proving that the decision to offer low wages is a choice, not an economic necessity.


Costco pays decent wages, as such I try to do most of my shopping there.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 03/26/13 12:46 PM

Focus on labor cost reduction is something that I have long considered just another in a long chain of broken management fads, especially when dealing with service market.

People are starting to realize true costs of employee turnover and poor service.

Unfortunately this type of equilibrium finding takes time. First people have to come up with competitive business models that require a higher standard of labor. I think this thinking will continue to expand, especially as enterprises become more data driven and come to quantify the true ROI regarding labor.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 03/26/13 01:02 PM
I really don't think such "broken management fad" is not unlike dumping toxic waste in the river. People should be going to jail over it, or at the very least government needs to step in and prevent it from happening.

I don't think you would deny that suppressing wages causes very real societal damage?
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 03/26/13 01:26 PM

Govt stepping in would probably be worse and simply mask the underlying problems.

Of course there are degrees.

But not all sectors are equal. For example, retail is different than manufacturing. Or agriculture. If wages are artificially raised for agriculture for example, then we just see more imports from South America which effectively screws us all in myriad ways.

With manufacturing it just gives... not just incentive but pretext for more work to move overseas, and helps mask other contributing factors.

Ideally, if you want standard of living increases you need real increases in production and competition. Not GDP per se, because that measures non-productive economic activity but real production of competitive goods/services. This even goes back to why our banking system and the bailouts were such a fail - the Goldman Sachs of the world have no eye or care for local conditions or opportunities.

Govt abetted concentration of capital leads directly to slower re-adjustment of the general economy. When real saving are in local institutions, that have real loanable money then you get the kind of capital investments needed for grassroots competition and a wider variety of emergent business models that find the real wage/value equilibrium much more quickly. Our centralized model that has led to concentration of wealth with the 0.01% also directly leads to ossified Main St economy. The capital flows that should be catalyst for economic self-reorganization arent there as they should be, so the natural re-organization of the economy towards more competitive and higher-producing models also lags behind as well.

Lack of competition lets bad business practices continue, and so on and so forth.

If you mask the problem with a spot-fix like major mandatory wage increases without an understanding and addressing of the underlying fundamentals you are just making the problem worse and kicking the can down the road.

I think everyone should have the opportunity to make a livable wage. However, for overall standard of living to increase - and not be dependent as well on continued foreign subsidization, we need long term fundamental fixes not feel-good spot fixes that may in some sectors do more harm than good, and further distort the true value of labor.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 03/30/13 12:13 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26...get-costco.html
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 03/30/13 11:51 PM
The leeches at Wal-mart have been making it progressively worse since Sam died. When they fail this will be a perfect example of what people who pursue bad business models deserve to have happen.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/04/13 03:35 PM
Fast Food Strikes

I believe that anyone that gets a union, deserves one.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/04/13 06:46 PM
Agreed... A union will eat these people alive.

These are the same people who cannot remember to provide me with a eating utensil. Anyone restricted by their skill set to working at a fast food should not expect anything more than minimum wage. They work at a minimum skill set job so they get a minimum wage for it.

A = A

I like how they are throwing this word *living wage* around. That is laughable.....As if it is McDonalds responsibility to provide people with a good life. As if they should not worry about their profits even though they are the only ones with skin in the game. As if they are moral criminials for making a profit during a down economy.

The opening sentence says it all really. ""Edwin Guzman already lost his job once for union-organizing. ""

I am all for the working man in America....If you do not like your work then you are surrounded by free libraries, internet and countless other ways of educate yourself. I never subscribed to the poor me stories. I have been out of pocket twice in my life and rebounded.

You are promised oppurtunity not success. I would rather see a real discussion about increasing minimum wage to keep up with inflation than this. They want skilled labor wages for unskilled labor not a fair *living wage*.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/04/13 09:11 PM
I live in one of the least populated states and the starting wage at most fast food chains start at 10hr.
Maybe people should move to where the work is like the old days.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/04/13 10:38 PM
Originally Posted By: Sethan

I like how they are throwing this word *living wage* around. That is laughable.....As if it is McDonalds responsibility to provide people with a good life.


Good life = livable wage? One strange definition.

Yes, they do have to provide livable wage. Alternative is starvation on the street OR sitting on the dole and the difference between livable wage and what McD is paying is on the taxpayers.

I don't eat at McD but pay taxes, why are you asking me to support other people's bad eating habits?

Originally Posted By: Sethan
You are promised oppurtunity not success.


You _know_ it isn't being delivered on this promise. Especially millenials and younger are Fucked big times. There are no opportunities out there for everyone no matter how hard you work.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/04/13 11:21 PM
Who here hasn't worked two jobs at the same time to make ends meet?
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/04/13 11:34 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Sethan

I like how they are throwing this word *living wage* around. That is laughable.....As if it is McDonalds responsibility to provide people with a good life.


Good life = livable wage? One strange definition.

Yes, they do have to provide livable wage. Alternative is starvation on the street OR sitting on the dole and the difference between livable wage and what McD is paying is on the taxpayers.

I don't eat at McD but pay taxes, why are you asking me to support other people's bad eating habits?

Originally Posted By: Sethan
You are promised oppurtunity not success.


You _know_ it isn't being delivered on this promise. Especially millenials and younger are Fucked big times. There are no opportunities out there for everyone no matter how hard you work.



Please keep proving my point every time you post.

foil
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/05/13 10:26 PM
Dear Hele,

The only point you have left is that you and reason are not on speaking terms.

-Sini
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/05/13 10:59 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Dear Hele,

The only point you have left is that you and reason are not on speaking terms.

-Sini


Pot meet Kettle.
foil
Posted By: Wolfgang Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/06/13 01:59 AM
Isn't is something, even back in 1964 the liberal progressive BULLSHIT wasn't working.

Even you can learn something from this video sini... watch the entire video.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 01:56 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Good life = livable wage? One strange definition.


A living wage is not a good life.
My point exactly, McDonalds provides a living wage in my opinion and is not responsible for providing someone with a good life. I would image none of these people have missed a meal , roof over thier head , or even a gaming system or two in their homes. If they have than it is generally due to lack of effort on their part. Although some people are on hard times due to things outside of their control, I believe that is a small minority of this group. The people in the news article expect a good life to be provided by McDonalds. They want to hold this corporation responsible for the quality of their own life as if they have no other options. Only in America...If you want to see real poverty then glance across the ocean. What these people consider poverty is beyond upper class for people living in actually poverty.

Originally Posted By: sini
Yes, they do have to provide livable wage. Alternative is starvation on the street OR sitting on the dole and the difference between livable wage and what McD is paying is on the taxpayers.


Yes, McDonalds should not pay less then what has been determined to be the minimum wage for such jobs. The alternative however is not starvation on the street or sitting on the dole. The alternative is to invest in themselves and seek better employement or select one of the million other alternatives that do not involve sitting on their butt with their hand out. Times are hard but I find it hard to believe that their only choose in life is McDonalds drive through or starvation on the streets.

Originally Posted By: sini
You _know_ it isn't being delivered on this promise. Especially millenials and younger are Fucked big times. There are no opportunities out there for everyone no matter how hard you work.


Alright, I will give you this one. Oppurtunity in the job market is stagnant right now. We cannot point the social gun at large corpoartion and yell "FIX IT" though.

Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 02:04 PM
Originally Posted By: Sethan
My point exactly, McDonalds provides a living wage in my opinion


Well you are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong. Someone working at McDonalds or WallMart full time could end up (depending on minimum wage law in a given state) below official poverty line. It is all but guaranteed for a family and/or part-time work (and they cap at 28 hours to not pay benefits).

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-could-change-the-us-economy-2012-12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/walmarts-internal-compensation-plan_n_2145086.html

Quote:
Yes, McDonalds should not pay less then what has been determined to be the minimum wage for such jobs


You see minimum wage is a political issue. What takes to live is a social issue. They do not necessary intersect.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 02:21 PM
I see your point and you are right. They pay a shitty wage for a shitty job by hiring people in shitty situations.I cannot disagree with you on this because it is a fact.

These people are not slaves to Walmart or McDonalds though Sini. These corporations are not slaves to the people.

You are trying to hold these corporations at gun point and tell them to fix your economy and people's lives. That is not how the game works.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 02:23 PM

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 02:31 PM
Originally Posted By: Sethan
You are trying to hold these corporations at gun point and tell them to fix your economy and people's lives.


I think solution is rather simple - universal health care coverage and minimal wage that lands you above poverty line.

So:

1. Increase minimum wage to 12$/h and index it to food/housing costs in the area (so some places it will be above, some below).
2. Remove any kind of incentives to keep people from working full time - specifically "no benefits" hard cutoff. Every hour working should result in % contribution toward 40/week - 100% coverage.

Basic needs have to be covered.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 02:41 PM
1. Sounds good to me, I stated earlier the discussion should be about raising the minimum wage and not requiring select companies to pay up. The zoning of minimum wage will be very tricky but I see no harm in bringing up the issue. Every business requires a certain level of risk, I view minimum wage as the ante for hiring an employee.


2. People should not be punished on either side of the line for having full time workers. It is just too easy of a rule to work around. Both sides are punished in the end for this type of rule. Id rather see them provided a solid minimum wage so they can go purchase their own coverage versus some shitty company provided insurance. The government can't seem to do anything right these days so I would prefer they leave my insurance coverage alone.

Keep in mind that the cost of living is already very high due to many factors. Raising the minimum wage will further increase those cost and could raise the cost of living even more. Which could in turn justify a higher minimum wage to match the new cost of living. We have to be careful not to create a social pyramid scheme while trying to create a *livable wage*.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 02:55 PM
I do not want to see the government forcing insurance coverage laws down the throats of big business. These large business owners are more intelligent than polticians on any given day. They will ALWAYS find ways to pass any punishment along to their employees or consumers. So be careful about wanting government to go after big business. You will be the one licking your wounds in the end.

I see it as a large troll slowly swinging a massive hammer at a more nimble opponent. He will never hit his opponent but will end up beating the hell out of everything around him.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 04:01 PM
1&2 - agreed. Welcome to social elitist, communistic, facist-progressive movement Sethan.

Quote:
Keep in mind that the cost of living is already very high due to many factors. Raising the minimum wage will further increase those cost and could raise the cost of living even more.


This is no longer universally-accepted truth, sure raising minimum wages during peak union times had this effect, but right now there are examples to the contrary. Australia is one example. I am sure there are more. My understanding is that you can't raise minimum wage to prosperity for everyone (i.e. 50$/h minimum will cause inflation), but you can to lift most out of abject poverty.

I dislike notion of employer-sponsored health coverage, businesses should focus on doing what they are good at, and unless you are insurer or a hospital that would not be providing health care coverage.

Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 05:02 PM
I doubt agreeing to a logically increased minimum wage and removing penalties that prevent employers working people full time makes me any of the things you listed above. On top of that I try to distance myself from any of these labels people assign to others.


Sethan is a human with some common sense.






Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 05:22 PM
I would also shy away from comparing the American economy to others around the world. Economies in general are very complex formulas with several x factors.

My bottom line is that low end jobs should be a motivator to move up the chain and not a sustainable career. This creates a low end entitlement class that will always require the intelligence of people above them. You can be enslaved without physical shackles.

We cannot make it comfortable for people to remain unskilled, entitled and uneducated. People should never be comfortable with those attributes.

I believe in a safety net within an economy via a minimum wage that allows people to get by during hard times. I do not believe in turning mediocrity into a career choice.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 05:41 PM
Quote:
I dislike notion of employer-sponsored health coverage, businesses should focus on doing what they are good at, and unless you are insurer or a hospital that would not be providing health care coverage.


I agree. The problem is govt is also no better at it. Lets extend tax incentives to individuals, and allow insurance to be sold across state lines for starters.

Rand Paul also had a pretty idea he has worked on with insurance companies regarding a long term contract structure where younger workers can enter into contracts with insurance companies that cover long periods of time. So they pay less while they are young, and more as they age. This gets them in the system early so insurance can invest against future payouts and still make money, and incentivises people to pay into the system before they actually need it.

I think if these three things were implemented, a good chunk our issues would be corrected. After,we could see what was left and make more intelligent decisions regarding any possible next steps.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 07:30 PM
Originally Posted By: Sethan
My bottom line is that low end jobs should be a motivator to move up the chain and not a sustainable career. This creates a low end entitlement class that will always require the intelligence of people above them.


Society operates on averages, if everyone was Albert Einstein, then least adept Einsteins would be driving taxicabs and flipping burgers. Individuals can aspire to excellence, but populations cannot escape mediocrity.

Because of this low-end jobs should be a sustainable career, because somewhere for someone this is best they could do. Alternative is forced eugenics.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 08:26 PM
"No, you do not have to think; it is an act of moral choice. But someone had to think to keep you alive; if you choose to default, you default on existence and you pass the deficit to some moral man, expecting him to sacrifice his good for the sake of letting you survive by your evil."

John Galt - Atlas Shrugged



We both know the majority of those jobs are not filled with people doing the best they can do. If they were then they would be happy to have that job. They would not be unionizing to demand higher wages than their skilled counterpart.

I worked at similiar jobs for several years during high school and my freshman year in college. I know from my own experience the type of people who *limit* themselves to these types of jobs. They are not the noble hard working victims that politicians and newspapers make them out to be. Nothing like sitting around the kitchen listening to people educate each other on how to game the system for more welfare and entitlements while stealing steak rolls out of the freezer to sell to a gas station up the road. *actually happened* I do not want to cater of those who made the choose to default and pass the deficit along to moral men.

I started out building docks for a guy when I was 13. I had to work with a pile driver that weighed almost as much as I did in a nasty ass swamp to complete that job. After that I worked numerous positions in several restraunts. Nothing like coming home covered with grease at 12 from a job no one appreciates you doing. I finally got hired on as a iron worker during college. I spent 2 summers burning up in a nasty ass plastic plant while risking death and dismemberment to build iron structures. I finally got through college and landed a few tech jobs which were actually worse than my previously listed jobs. I ended up doing tower equipment installation and dangling off of 200+ foot towers to install various equipment for a few more years. I finally landed a cozy job as a network technician for a bank. I say all of this because I have been through the meat grinder and know what it is like.

I met a few excellent hard working Americans during that time who were doing their best and happy to be employed at these same places. You are correct that those type of people exist but Sini they are a diamond in the rough. I defend the minimum wage and similiar programs because of those few people. Those people were in need and appreciated society giving them a chance to live a normal life. I am glad we had this conversation because I had forgot about most of those people.

If mediocrity is a necessary evil within society then lets try to limit it as much as possible instead of catering to it. Lets not pat the people who *limit* themselves on the back and tell them they are doing the best they can.

That same attitude is what is ruining the American education system. It will have the same effect on our economy if we allow it.

Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 09:08 PM
We are not talking about "pat the people who *limit* themselves on the back" - we are talking about food, shelter and healthcare. Minimum wage isn't about living it large, it is about independently living . It is about not having to "dear government/community/church it is still 3 days until my next paycheck but I don't have any money to buy food".

I strongly believe that everyone who puts honest day of work in, no matter how much of a screwup-dropout-whathaveyou, deserves to make a living.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/09/13 09:29 PM
They do deserve to make a living if they put in a hard days work. I am just not convinced these low wage workers are starving or sleeping out in the cold at night. I would go as far as to say no one in America should go without those 3 basic needs whether they are working or not.

I just believe the people in the news article are entitled loud mouths that want more for them and less for everyone else though. They are just as greedy as the ultra rich but lack the capability to acquire more wealth.

You can probably Google a few stories but very few people are going without food, shelter or basic healthcare. If that were true these starving people would be plastered all over the news everyday. It would be the biggest political issue out there.

So good news...
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 02:14 PM
Walmart Pays Workers Poorly And Sinks While Costco Pays Workers Well And Sails -Proof That You Get What You Pay For.

Now I think this is a bunch of wishful thinking. How you treat employees is part of it, but having it as "proof" or "cause" is one huge stretch. Sad truth is that it doesn't matter if you treat your rank-and-file as shit, for as long as you can contain PR fallout you will do just fine.

Problem with Wallmart is that its brand got very tarnished, at this point 'Scummart' perception entered realm of general knowledge and that what have hurt the company.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 02:22 PM
Originally Posted By: Sethan
If that were true these starving people would be plastered all over the news everyday.


You are right, it is not in the US news cycle, you don't make money by making your viewers depressed. Scared, upset, angry and train wrecks - that makes money and that what they show.

Non-US news do report it, but you have to be reading non-US news to notice:

UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9694000/9694094.stm
Canada: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/worl...article7551156/
Qatar: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/201210343152481862.html
Qatar: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2011/09/2011915172736118705.html

Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 02:36 PM
Probably won't be taking anything from Forbes serious anytime soon after reading this. I think my list includes every major news outlet in America now. Why would they allow such a extremely biased article on their site? This is what I would expect from a website like info-wars.com or something.

""Here’s a crazy thought—might it have something to do with the fact that Costco pays nearly all of its employees a decent living (well in excess of the minimum wage) while Wal-Mart continues to pay its workers as if their employees don’t actually need to eat more than once a week, live in an enclosed space and, on occasion, take their kids to see a doctor?""

Come on.....Really Forbes? This is a straight up smear article.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 02:45 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
You are right, it is not in the US news cycle, you don't make money by making your viewers depressed. Scared, upset, angry and train wrecks - that makes money and that what they show.


Actually that sums up 95% of the news on every major outlet in America. So I assume all of them will be going out of business soon and http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ is about to rake in the cash.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 02:48 PM
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2011/09/2011915172736118705.html

From your own article.

The American lifestyle

Being poor in America is not that bad, according a report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has analysed Tuesday's census data. Eighty per cent of poor households have air-conditioning, 92 per cent have a microwave, and 42 per cent of poor people own their own home.

One third of poor Americans have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV and two thirds of poor Americans have DVD players.

Researcher Timothy Smeeding scoffs at this analysis. "I reckon two people at the Heritage Foundation spent more on lunch today than the cost of a DVD player," he said. "There are certain things that have become regular parts of life."

Unlike much of the world, poverty in the US "does not mean living on a dollar per day". It is more like "eight dollars per person, per day", Smeeding said.

Back at the food bank in Tennessee, Marcia Wells knows poor Americans still have an easier time than people in much of the world. "I certainly see that our problems seem tame when compared to abject poverty and hunger you see in other countries," she said. "But it is all relative and [food insecurity] is no less real here, in relation to the American lifestyle."
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 02:54 PM
I am not saying people are not suffering Sini. The economy is trying to crawl out of the gutter right now and the lower end of the spectrum has it tough. I just do not believe we have people dying of starvation out in the streets because Walmart isn't paying them a fair wage.

That illusion is created by people who are in general anti-business and will blame every bump in the road on some large corpoartion. If you want to believe we have starving camps of kids dying in tent cities all over America than so be it.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 02:56 PM
Originally Posted By: Sethan

Back at the food bank in Tennessee, Marcia Wells knows poor Americans still have an easier time than people in much of the world. "I certainly see that our problems seem tame when compared to abject poverty and hunger you see in other countries," she said. "But it is all relative and [food insecurity] is no less real here, in relation to the American lifestyle."


Starving and living in tents with no access to healthcare isn't any different in US or Africa. The difference is that in US you also happen to have access to DVDs and maybe internet while you are at it.

This is "look they have a DVD player, PS1 and an Old TV (that have nearly-zero value)" argument that I don't see as valid. You don't starve any less because you have some Salvation Army electronics. It just shows that these people are starving in a rich society.

Quote:
Being poor in America is not that bad, according a report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has analysed Tuesday's census data.


Yes, when you compare to starving Nigerian kids in a refugee camps. Simple fact that such comparison was made with some people living in United States of America, the richest country in the world, should give you a pause.

Quote:
Eighty per cent of poor households have air-conditioning, 92 per cent have a microwave, and 42 per cent of poor people own their own home.


I call shenanigans on "household" definitions. It is likely "of poor people who happen to live in a house", conveniently omitting ones who live in an old trailer or tent city.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 03:00 PM
Originally Posted By: Sethan


""Here’s a crazy thought—might it have something to do with the fact that Costco pays nearly all of its employees a decent living (well in excess of the minimum wage) while Wal-Mart continues to pay its workers as if their employees don’t actually need to eat more than once a week, live in an enclosed space and, on occasion, take their kids to see a doctor?""

Come on.....Really Forbes? This is a straight up smear article.



While conclusions might be unsubstantiated, criticism of Wallmart is very well deserved and by no means misplaced.

If you don't see it that way consider it a strong indication that your belief system is sliding into fever swamps.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 03:01 PM


Nope...no difference at all Sini. We just have dvd players and internet.

Americans are not starving to death. Why do you insist on pushing this illusion?
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 03:05 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Sethan


""Here’s a crazy thought—might it have something to do with the fact that Costco pays nearly all of its employees a decent living (well in excess of the minimum wage) while Wal-Mart continues to pay its workers as if their employees don’t actually need to eat more than once a week, live in an enclosed space and, on occasion, take their kids to see a doctor?""

Come on.....Really Forbes? This is a straight up smear article.



While conclusions might be unsubstantiated, criticism of Wallmart is very well deserved and by no means misplaced.

If you don't see it that way consider it a strong indication that your belief system is sliding into fever swamps.


Walmart could do a better job with their people. I totally agree with you on that. This guy said that Walmart believes their people should not eat more than one meal a week though.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 03:17 PM
Originally Posted By: Sethan
Americans are not starving to death. Why do you insist on pushing this illusion?


We shouldn't even have to have this conversation. USA, the richest country in the world, should not have anyone concerned with basic needs like food, healthcare, shelter. We are collectively rich enough that they could be provided for, no IFs or BUTs. The facts that they are not, while 1% getting richer and richer, shows that we are sliding into medieval levels of barbarism.

How could you be talking about kid's opportunity, American Way, when kid's parents are living in a tent towns dying from a whooping cough in their mid 20s?!
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 03:25 PM

@Sethan

Level of service makes a huge difference, just FYI. Maybe you do not notice or care - in many cases I sure dont. (other than noting the general state of disorganization of the shelves, slow stocking, etc)

But I can tell you lots of people do - especially middle aged women. Who gossip about the good or poor service they get at a store alllll the time. Trying to say that there is no connect between pay/benefits and service, and service/sales is a nonstarter. It makes a huge difference, go strike up a watercooler conversation about places to shop and service with some females at your workplace sometime. Especially if they are 40+

Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 03:26 PM
Now we are talking.....

We should not have some people living the way they do in this country. I agree that no one should go without basic food, shelter and medic treatment in America. We need to be focusing on government waste though and not Walmart.

Look at all the billions of tax dollars our government waste on projects that the American people are not standing behind. I doubt you will find a level headed tax payer that would not like to see their tax dollars go to forming a better foundation for those three basic needs.

So I absolutely agree with that statement. I just will not believe it is the fault of corporations and hate it when they are used as a scapegoat for the problem.



http://www.nrcc.org/thewastelist/

Just shift through this website for a bit and you will see what I mean. The tax money is there to start working on those 3 basic needs but it is being wasted on robotic squirrels.

Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 03:37 PM
<-- doesn't shop at Walmart

Not because of poor service though. It is just out of my way and several local places are on my way to the house. Also the local places don't sell vegetables that taste like cardboard.

The last time I went to Walmart was in Florida a few weeks ago. We needed some ice before we went down to the beach. It literally took us over 20 minutes to get out of the store because the ice didnt have a scan bar. They had to bring a manager over to ring up the ice. My brother was going to get a gas card but decided it wasnt worth the wait for them to figure out how to take our money for it.

So you will not see me defending Walmart's customer service anytime soon on this forum. We could probably make a whole thread about how crappy their service is.

I just pointed out the article was an over the top smear job that Forbes put on it's website.

Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 04:13 PM

I actually just considered it a bit of tongue in cheek hyperbole, not intended to be taken literally.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 04:45 PM
It was, but the article as a whole came off as a obvious smear job meant for a personal blog more than a website like Forbes.

Hyperbole is usually a good indicator of the writers strong feelings towards something even if not meant to be taken literally.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 04:54 PM
As you might have guessed by reading my posts, I have deep appreciation of hyperbole as a tool. Without it you simply reporting dry facts. Facts like disproportionate prevalence of below-the-poverty status in the ranks of Wallmart employees.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 09:34 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Sethan

Back at the food bank in Tennessee, Marcia Wells knows poor Americans still have an easier time than people in much of the world. "I certainly see that our problems seem tame when compared to abject poverty and hunger you see in other countries," she said. "But it is all relative and [food insecurity] is no less real here, in relation to the American lifestyle."


Starving and living in tents with no access to healthcare isn't any different in US or Africa. The difference is that in US you also happen to have access to DVDs and maybe internet while you are at it.

This is "look they have a DVD player, PS1 and an Old TV (that have nearly-zero value)" argument that I don't see as valid. You don't starve any less because you have some Salvation Army electronics. It just shows that these people are starving in a rich society.

Quote:
Being poor in America is not that bad, according a report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has analysed Tuesday's census data.


Yes, when you compare to starving Nigerian kids in a refugee camps. Simple fact that such comparison was made with some people living in United States of America, the richest country in the world, should give you a pause.

Quote:
Eighty per cent of poor households have air-conditioning, 92 per cent have a microwave, and 42 per cent of poor people own their own home.


I call shenanigans on "household" definitions. It is likely "of poor people who happen to live in a house", conveniently omitting ones who live in an old trailer or tent city.



Yes, we know, if the facts don't come from you they are wrong.
[watching]
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 09:39 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Sethan
Americans are not starving to death. Why do you insist on pushing this illusion?


We shouldn't even have to have this conversation. USA, the richest country in the world, should not have anyone concerned with basic needs like food, healthcare, shelter. We are collectively rich enough that they could be provided for, no IFs or BUTs. The facts that they are not, while 1% getting richer and richer, shows that we are sliding into medieval levels of barbarism.

How could you be talking about kid's opportunity, American Way, when kid's parents are living in a tent towns dying from a whooping cough in their mid 20s?!


Were the fuck is this happening. Why are you not there helping them. Do you just talk or do you do anything to help?

Your progressive propaganda is getting old.
The "poor" get free medical, free food, free money, free housing. The "less poor" get free medical, free food, free money, free or assisted housing, not to mention free education and training to help them get out of being poor when they find someone willing to work for a living instead of living off the government.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/18/13 11:42 PM
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
The "less poor" get free medical, free food, free money, free or assisted housing, not to mention free education and training to help them get out of being poor when they find someone willing to work for a living instead of living off the government.


Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/19/13 12:01 PM
As I thought.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/19/13 12:48 PM
You are so disconnected from reality and so deep into right wing fever swamps that what you describe and what really happens are two different parallel realities.

I don't even need to pick wrong parts, all of it, everything you say is bonehead-wrong.

The only consolation I have, and I must believe it to not question your humanity, is that you are simply misguided person that let his political passions cloud his vision to the point of blindness.
Posted By: Sethan Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/19/13 01:24 PM
I used to love reading Goosebumps books when I was a kid.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/19/13 06:00 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
You are so disconnected from reality and so deep into right wing fever swamps that what you describe and what really happens are two different parallel realities.

I don't even need to pick wrong parts, all of it, everything you say is bonehead-wrong.

The only consolation I have, and I must believet to not question your humanity, is that you are simply misguided person that let his political passions cloud his vision to the point of blindness.



You have no idea what you are talking about. Please continue to spout your Nazi ideals. You get faced with truth but can only lie to make your point. The only compassion you have is to money and power.
What I described is true you can tell by not seeing people dead from starvation in the gutters.
Please keep the lies rolling in and bringing up fox news when you can't defend yourself.
[watching]
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/19/13 06:23 PM
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
What I described is true


You said:

Quote:
The "less poor"


Define your "less poor".

Quote:
get free medical,


Cite or examples.

Quote:
free food,


Cite or examples.

Quote:
free money,


Cite or examples.

Quote:
free or assisted housing


Cite or examples.

Quote:
free education and training


Cite or examples.


Way you describe it, is who wouldn't want to be "less poor". Where do I sign up for this free ride, right? Wrong!

In reality all of the above is fringe cases, very dependent on state and more importantly with majority of people in need not being covered by any of these programs. Your fellow right wing fever swampers are so found of fixating on that one case of project housing black single mom with 11 kids that you conveniently forget about majority that does need help and often does not get it and is ineligible or on years-long waiting lists that exist entirely for political reasons.

If all these people get such a sweet free ride, why do they starve in tent cities instead of enjoying "free food, free medical, free money and free housing"?

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
-Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/20/13 01:54 AM
You keep proving you have no idea what you are talking about.
I lived the life, I know these people.
Nowhere did I say its a good living. You keep saying the rich do not help and you are wrong.
You keep telling lies.
All the things I said are true, I know from life experience, you know nothing about it.
You are a social elitists.
You make me sick.
[watching]
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/20/13 02:33 AM
So no backing up your words with anything but more chest thumping and "I know from experience"? Thought so. You are full of shit and you are still not entitled to your own facts.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/20/13 02:45 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
So no backing up your words with anything but more chest thumping and "I know from experience"? Thought so. You are full of shit and you are still not entitled to your own facts.


I don't need to. All the services for the poor are out there to help.
You are an idiot.
You are a social elitist and can not prove anything so you blame FOX news or call names and get mad.
You should change your name to Little Hitler and try and pass on your progressive agendas to your own kind, the ones dumb enough to believe your pathetic attempts to prove you are the smartest guy in the room.
Snap that arm straight up in the air and click your heels everytime you make a post so you feel better about posting total bullshit.
[watching]
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/20/13 03:43 AM
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/20/13 10:50 AM
I think I once told the story of a guy I know that was told he was to stupid to get into the Marines, he was told the test he took was the lowest grade the recruiter had ever seen.
This person told me he had a long lost twin.
He will be happy when I tell him I found you.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/21/13 02:48 AM
Cup of tea Hele?

Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 04/21/13 01:48 PM
I would expect nothing less from you. I assume you have a Stalin, Mao and Khmer Rouge set on your desk to keep you motivated.
Keep up the good work, everyone sees right through you.

[watching]
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 06/04/13 04:19 PM
Forbes: Costs of subsidizing Wallmart employees

Quote:
Accurate and timely data on Wal-Mart’s wage and employment practices is not always readily available. However, occasional releases of demographic data from public assistance programs can provide useful windows into the scope of taxpayer subsidization of Wal-Mart. After analyzing data released by Wisconsin’s Medicaid program, the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that a single 300- person Wal-Mart Supercenter store in Wisconsin likely costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost taxpayers up to $1,744,590 per year – about $5,815 per employee.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/09/13 02:00 AM
America's second-largest employer is a temp agency.

Corporations sure thing have no problems inventing new imaginative ways of screwing employees.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/09/13 02:23 AM
Just because they are temp jobs doesn't mean they are corporations hiring them. Temp workers fill a important
roll in the workplace. Large and small companies higher
temp workers for a reason, one which I am sure you cannot
comprehend.

Now I understand they do not have a place in your unicorn
lollypop universal everything land, but we all have to make
sacrifices.

My company gets temp workers when we have a large project
that needs extra hands to complete but doesn't require
a full time employee after the job is done.

We have also given temp workers full time jobs after
seeing the are competent enough to train for a position.

We even had a temp worker that was on leave from the navy for
a month and was bored and signed up to a temp job with us.
He said he wanted to work while he was off for a month so he
wouldn't get bored.

Temp workers have always been around for thousands of years
its not a new evil corporation plot.

I have even meet people who like temp work and do not plan to
do anything else.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/11/13 01:22 PM
You did not understand the article. It was about intentionally replacing full time employees with part time and temp workers to save on costs.

Imagine if your employer fired you and hired 2 minimum wage guys working part time to do it. That kind of situation.

"We all have to make sacrifices (so shareholders make extra profit)" logic does not work out for people who do not happen to be shareholders.

Replacing full-time jobs with part time and temp. contract workers absolutely makes sense if you only concerned about profits, it does not at all make sense if you consider wider societal consequences of such actions.

This is not unlike dumping toxic waste into the river. Sure, it reduces your costs and results in higher profits, but your increased profits are minute in comparison to damage your actions cause downstream.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/22/13 01:09 AM
Forbes on McJobs

Quote:
McDonald’s workers suffer financial woes for a simple reason, and it’s not financial ignorance. It’s that their salaries all but doom them to a life of poverty. If the minimum wage had kept up with gains in worker productivity, it would be more than $20 an hour today. In fact, most of us are falling behind.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/31/13 02:01 PM
McD can pay workers livable wage

McJobs is one clear example where government regulation is needed. I don't eat McD (or shop in Wallmart), yet I sponsor them via my taxes going to social support payments to their employees because corporations won't pay livable wages.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/31/13 04:10 PM

You are just going to create even more problems with that. If you want to talk about something universal and simple like minimum wage, I am willing to listen.

But the only thing McD's illustrates is that there are myriad problems that have compounded each other. Trying to micro engineer a better result from such a situation with govt action is bound to end not only in failure, but make things worse.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/02/13 01:50 AM
Originally Posted By: Sini
McD can pay workers livable wage

McJobs is one clear example where government regulation is needed. I don't eat McD (or shop in Wallmart), yet I sponsor them via my taxes going to social support payments to their employees because corporations won't pay livable wages.


Aww, poor guy. Looks like you were duped by the Consumerist pulling its data from HuffPo who got it from an undergrad paper. Oh well, sometimes you're the windshield...
Where HuffPo really gets their info.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/03/13 01:42 AM
Quote:
So a Big Mac would, in fact, have to go up by a full dollar, not 68 cents, in order to double wages at McDonald’s.


HOLY FUCK! WHOLE DOLLAR. THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/03/13 04:21 AM
Originally Posted By: CJR
research from Janney Capital Markets. It puts labor costs for US franchises at 24 percent of sales, which gibes with McDonald’s company-owned stores. Janney estimates franchisee operating income at just 5 percent.

Doubling pay without dipping into profit would mean menu prices would have to rise 24 percent—and that’s assuming such price increases wouldn’t hurt sales, which they would.


Now now, let's not just cherry pick the parts we like.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/04/13 01:31 PM
Originally Posted By: Sini
Quote:
So a Big Mac would, in fact, have to go up by a full dollar, not 68 cents, in order to double wages at McDonald’s.


HOLY FUCK! WHOLE DOLLAR. THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!


For once you are correct.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/19/17 12:40 AM
Please read this article: To My Fellow Plutocrats: You Can Cure Trumpism . It discusses many of the themes we have discussed here over the years.

Quote
The real threat to our republic is an alarming breakdown in social cohesion, and the cause of this breakdown is obvious: radical, rising economic inequality, and the anger and anxiety it engenders. The truth is that over the span of decades, American lawmakers (at the behest of economic elites like us!) have enacted policies that have depressed wages, stoked economic insecurity and exacerbated cultural angst and social dislocation. At the same time, a tiny minority of mostly urban elite (again, us!) have benefited obscenely from our growing economic, political and legal power.


and

Quote
In 2014, when I last checked in with you all, my home city of Seattle had just passed a $15 minimum wage ordinance. Seattle we were told, would slide into the ocean. Restaurant closures. Epic job losses.

Over the last three years we have implemented the policy in stages. Today, all large employers—those with more than 500 workers on their payroll—pay their workers $15 an hour. Small employers pay between $11 and $13. So how is Seattle doing?

When the ordinance passed in June of 2014, Seattle’s unemployment rate already stood at a healthy 4.5 percent; in April 2017, it hit a record low of 2.6 percent. Seattle is now the fastest growing big city in America. Our restaurant industry is booming, second only to San Francisco in the number of eateries per capita, with food service industry job growth far outpacing the nation. Restaurateurs who once warned against raising wages are now complaining about how hard it is to fill the positions they have.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/19/17 04:09 PM
Interesting what you can do with statistics. And here from a different perspective.

Originally Posted by Washington Post
Using their preferred method, they calculated that workers' earnings increased by $5.54 a week on average because of the minimum wage. Using other methods, the researchers found that the minimum wage hike actually caused total weekly earnings to drop -- by as much as $5.22 a week.

Looks like taking the difference between these two outcomes gives you roughly a net gain of 32 cents per week (which is likely well within the margin of error). WOW.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/19/17 09:59 PM
I personally won't enjoy when the mob drags me out of my hilltop house, but at least I will know exactly why. While some of you will keep wondering how this could have happened all the way until the rope snaps around your neck.

This can't end well. Not even if you hoard guns and ammo.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/19/17 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Sini
I personally won't enjoy when the mob drags me out of my hilltop house, but at least I will know exactly why. While some of you will keep wondering how this could have happened all the way until the rope snaps around your neck.

This can't end well. Not even if you hoard guns and ammo.


The key is to live somewhere where all your neighbors also hoard guns and ammo [thumbsup}
Posted By: Brutal Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/20/17 06:53 PM
Originally Posted by Derid
The key is to live somewhere where all your neighbors also hoard guns and ammo [thumbsup}


I enjoy more living in Texas nearly every day.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/20/17 07:23 PM
Originally Posted by Sini
I personally won't enjoy when the mob drags me out of my hilltop house, but at least I will know exactly why. While some of you will keep wondering how this could have happened all the way until the rope snaps around your neck.

This can't end well. Not even if you hoard guns and ammo.

I'm not sure you will. As best I can tell, you believe that it is a fundamental problem of the haves vs. the have-nots. I think that is a manufactured dichotomy created by those in power to distract the masses from what is being done in D.C. "on their behalf". It wasn't that long ago in this country that the have-nots looked at the haves and said, "one day I can get there too". Now they watch, on their giant flat screen TVs, other have-nots (and the self righteous children of haves) throw temper tantrums and complain about how terrible their lot in life is, "If only that guy was forced to give me some of his money, all my problems would be solved." Never once realizing that they are being manipulated by the political powers that be. Who, through programs lauded to "help," have succeeded in removing any concept of responsibility, the ownership of which leads to the feelings of success and accomplishment that used to empower people to strive for more. It is a sad, sad day in America and it is painful to watch the only real beacon of hope for the entire world fading away.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/21/17 02:08 AM
You can't talk about responsibility when all you have to work with is circumstances.

That is, American Dream is dead. There are no opportunities to hard work, and hard work doesn't get you ahead. Class mobility at all times low, middle class is shrinking by sliding into poverty, and productivity gains almost exclusively go to 1% controlling capital. This is not a rhetorical turn of phrase, rather a hard cold facts backed by a lot of data.

That is, if the middle class was an index fund, it would be flat since mid 70s with occasional drops during downturns. In other words, a very poor investment.
Posted By: Owain Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/21/17 02:46 PM
If class mobility is low, it's because too many people want something for nothing.

That's not how it has ever worked.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/21/17 04:26 PM
Originally Posted by Owain
If class mobility is low, it's because too many people want something for nothing.

That's not how it has ever worked.


If you want to blame people in general, blame their voting habits and general comprehension of the consequences of not caring about politics or principles of good governance, and looking the other way while both major parties sell us all down a river.
Posted By: Owain Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/21/17 04:35 PM
There will never be equality of outcome until there is equality of effort.

Many people never even take advantage of the FREE education that is available to all, and don't even finish high school.

Get back to me when that milestone is accomplished, and we can consider the next milestone.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/21/17 04:40 PM
Originally Posted by Owain
There will never be equality of outcome until there is equality of effort.

Many people never even take advantage of the FREE education that is available to all, and don't even finish high school.

Get back to me when that milestone is accomplished, and we can consider the next milestone.



You are off in space, no one is talking about equality of outcomes.

Middle class stats are mostly inclusive of people with college degrees. No one is talking about High School dropouts.

So you are saying that before even beginning to worry about the cesspool of corruption and idiocy holding the country back, we should make sure everyone finishes high school? Really?

Once again, LOL
Posted By: Owain Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/21/17 06:02 PM
I am capable of multitasking. If you want to talk about class mobility, then this is a good place to start. Like I say, once that is accomplished, we can consider the next milestone. You don't have to try to reach nirvana in one step.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/21/17 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by Sini
You can't talk about responsibility when all you have to work with is circumstances.
Of course you can. You can choose to be a victim or you can suck it up like the rest of us a work to change to your circumstances.

Originally Posted by Sini
That is, American Dream is dead. There are no opportunities to hard work, and hard work doesn't get you ahead. Class mobility at all times low, middle class is shrinking by sliding into poverty, and productivity gains almost exclusively go to 1% controlling capital. This is not a rhetorical turn of phrase, rather a hard cold facts backed by a lot of data.
This is utter horseshit. Are you telling me that hard work didn't earn you all the gains you've realized in your life? It just all magically fell into your lap? You immigrated to the US and someone was standing there with a sign with your name and instead of a ride to the hotel, they gave you everything you have? Bologna.

As for the class mobility argument, first, I'm not convinced that this is a reasonable metric or that we have a good way to measure it. Second, in a brief perusal of recent articles from sources like the Atlantic, what I found where studies (performed by Harvard and UC Berkley) saying things are roughly the same as they were 50 years ago, and the article's author pontificating that "just because the data don't agree with me, doesn't mean I'm wrong."
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/21/17 07:18 PM
Originally Posted by Kaotic
This is utter horseshit. Are you telling me that hard work didn't earn you all the gains you've realized in your life? It just all magically fell into your lap? You immigrated to the US and someone was standing there with a sign with your name and instead of a ride to the hotel, they gave you everything you have? Bologna.


In fairness, that was then - we are talking about the now. Plus, despite any hyperbole tossed around, I don't think any is saying there is no opportunity.

I actually agree with Sini on many of the problems, we just widely differ on the best way to address those problems.

-

If we want to look at the real measure of systemic inequality, the metric I favor is actually the price of money. It is also a good metric for examining the level of corruption in public life, and its wipespread effects.

In a nutshell, its pretty simple.

Goldman Sachs and others pay a couple basis points on basically unlimited cashflow as needed. They are not able to do this because of any amount of hard work, or any type of free market. They are able to do this because they control the actual political offices and pseudo-govt entities that have been allowed to take control of such things. This is a true aristocratic upper class that gets, by virtue of their position and connections and control over public life, the ability to obtain unlimited funds to buy your company, put you out of work, and sell off the pieces - or repackage the pieces, sell some, and sell derivatives against the rest. This allows them to buy up debt of entire countries like Greece, using bribes and shady connections, to make huge transaction fees - and resell the debt, putting whole nations in debtor status. Or recently prop up dictators, yet cast a shadow of unmanageable debt - like they did with Venezuela recently. It gives them the leverage to buy out one piece of a distribution chain, then squeeze the rest of the chain, and force them into compromising positions to extract yet more wealth from the Main St economy. And many other things, such as hoarding gold, or artificially inflating whole commodities segments like corn or aluminum.

Again, they don't have this ability because of any free market mechanism. They have it, because they are literally allowed to use your and my, and everyone elses money to do it.

Flip that around 180, to a normal person without a well-off family background. Joe Schmoe pays literally over 1000% APR if they need a short term loan, but don't have the assets yet as collateral. Maybe if they get into college they get a starter visa at 27%+fees. Even people who get established with good credit are still paying about 16-17% APR, even if they swap around from deal to deal - because there are usually strings and fees.

Yet, since so much of the capital these days originates from the corrupt aspects of our financial sector, actual savings pay like 1%. Why are interest rates so high for most people, yet interest gained so low? Except for a few, connected segments?

Because the bulk of that capital investment and speculation is originating from inflationary practice, ultimately backed by tax dollars and the momentum of our currency, and is not originating from any type of savings - and flowing into the hands of a select, political few.

Thus, there is an enormous class divide between people on the bandwagon who have access and the people who service them, and those who do not. The financial market is extremely distorted as well.

This is not sustainable. This will, and is, literally destroying our society.

Of course this is the 10-second nutshell version, there are a thousand other aspects large and small. But the type of corporate, and aristocratic welfare we practice is an order of magnitude more destructive than any social policies that redistribute money to the poor.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/23/17 05:48 PM
I can't think of a solution to financial markets, when you start talking to people they fall asleep, think you are nutter, or both. It is too abstract, as such any measures to rebalance the system is impossible to socialize. Not even 2009 crash made any difference.

Consequently, I think the only way is to ago around this problem. If there is enough wealth, then parasites won't kill the host by siphoning some of it off.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/23/17 07:39 PM
Originally Posted by Sini
I can't think of a solution to financial markets, when you start talking to people they fall asleep, think you are nutter, or both. It is too abstract, as such any measures to rebalance the system is impossible to socialize. Not even 2009 crash made any difference.

Consequently, I think the only way is to ago around this problem. If there is enough wealth, then parasites won't kill the host by siphoning some of it off.


I think the scale has gotten too big. I used to agree that as long as enough wealth was created, the existence of some parasitic activity, while unfair and aggravating, could have minimal impact on the bigger picture. No longer.

It's so big, it is causing too much collateral damage. Even the commonly-known-but-much-panned corporate practice of only giving a shit about the next quarterly report largely stems from our monetary policy woes. If you don't keep that share price up, and keep your outward numbers good, its all too easy for some asshole to come in and leverage a couple billion buyout or other shitty manuever basically for free. It was a lot different when the Wolves of Wall St had to draw from a finite pool of capital and pay a real price for that money. Now, companies have to result to insane management and bookkeeping practices just to guard against gross fuckery enabled by free money. Sure, there are other factors at work there, but I believe it all rooted in the monetary aspect.

When it starts impacting general society to the level where large corps become less efficient, it should be obvious to everyone that there is a problem. That's even without going into the social effects of economic dislocation.

Even ignoring the wealth-maintenance aspects required to enable a true middle class, a dislocated worker who stashed away merely 200$ a month in savings at 8% for the 20 years he was stably employed will still have over 120k to fall back on and deal with the dislocation. A guy who did the same at 1% will have around 55k to fall back on. Never mind the people who buried themselves in consumer debt at 16% all those years, who will end up on Section 8 and/or the trailer park if they don't quickly find equivalent employment. (and who will then, apparently, proceed to vote for people who maintain the power of the cliques that maintain the policies that created the type of monetary policy that helped put them there)

--

Which brings me to your other point, that there isn't anything to be done for it because social acceptance of solutions is impossible. I agree. I genuinely think that the USA as we know it is not long for this world, or at least the version that I grew up with. A hundred years from now, the concepts of "Democracy and Republics" will also likely be eliciting guffaws from schoolchildren who wonder how a whole society could be so braindead, much like we used to laugh at people who followed and died for kings in ages past, simply cause their daddy was a king, when we were in gradeschool.

Note that is by no means what I want to happen. Its just what is going to happen. I predict that whatever China morphs into will become the academically accepted model state for the forseeable future, and the collectivist view will win out, where power cliques of technocrats control the lives of the masses. At least until space colonization becomes a thing, I expect the lights of both personal liberty and representative governance to dim. Maybe in the future, hindsight will give a clear enough picture to posterity to enable them to understand where we structurally went wrong and make corrective measures that last longer than 200 years.

Some will no doubt think my view is extreme. What is extreme however, are the demands reality ultimately places on us.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/24/17 01:40 AM
I happen to agree with your predictions, only I think there is even worst scenario than technocracy that can conceivably take place - theocracy. I don't think it is given that our technological society would survive. Our grand children might end up marveling at our tales of instantaneous communications on the go and imaginary worlds built in the digital space. When Rome fell it brought on dark ages, there is no reason to expect the same won't happen when US collapses (and do not go gentle into that good night).

Also, as a big proponent of republic and democracy, I think where we went wrong in adhering to one person, one vote rule. Not everyone is qualified to vote. These feeble minded people add hysteresis to the system where it does not respond rationally.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 07/24/17 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by Sini
I happen to agree with your predictions, only I think there is even worst scenario than technocracy that can conceivably take place - theocracy. I don't think it is given that our technological society would survive. Our grand children might end up marveling at our tales of instantaneous communications on the go and imaginary worlds built in the digital space. When Rome fell it brought on dark ages, there is no reason to expect the same won't happen when US collapses (and do not go gentle into that good night).

Also, as a big proponent of republic and democracy, I think where we went wrong in adhering to one person, one vote rule. Not everyone is qualified to vote. These feeble minded people add hysteresis to the system where it does not respond rationally.


I wont disagree in principle that the right to vote could theoretically be more limited. The question is by what metric? I can see pitfalls in a great many vetting methods.

The biggest pain points as I see them are as thus:

First is sheer scale, both of number of people and number of issues. The public mind can follow a very limited number of issues, and political figures are naturally clueless about the principles behind most issues, even when they genuinely desire to govern well in regards to those issues. This is exacerbated by a trend of wanting govt to do even more, and handle things in a more detailed manner. It is then further exacerbated by all of the issues being handled by the same political offices.

To wit: policy for everything from telecommunications to health to money originates from, or originates from appointees of, or at least is veto-able and/or enforced (or not) by the office of president. This might have worked when there were relatively few issues, and the Federal Govts scope was generally more limited, or served more of an oversight role, only stepping in when needed. These days, the govt is expected to actively manage these sectors. Yet, how can we expect good governance when neither the president nor the voters have any clue about the actual workings of most of those segments? Nevermind congress that votes on everything despite their, or their constituents lack of knowledge. If there were only a half-dozen segments that were actively managed, maybe it would be possible - but these days govt is expected to be intimately involved in producing ends, not just policing the means.

A good example is the monetary policy we were just discussing. Voters don't understand it, or don't think it really matters, and are losing their shirts and country due to that lack. This is generally why most people would consider me financially conservative/libertarian, not wanting govt to be involved - or at least not involved too deeply, and relegated to strict oversight roles that operate using very clear, well-defined criteria for oversight and action.

It's not that I think reducing govt is utopian, or that the world will even be measurably better in most segments by doing so. It is about putting all your eggs in one basket. When politics ultimately controls the fate of an entire sector of society, and the politics fails, then the sector fails. When you have so many sectors of society dependent on the same locus of political power, then inevitably some are going to fail.

If, in certain circumstances, people decide that activist govt is needed no matter what - then fine. But the political offices for that sector need separated out, and elected and overseen individually. You want to implement a widespread govt run health system? OK. But you can't just form it from Congress, and have the current President appoint its top officials, and expect it to work in the long run. Maybe it is a year, maybe it is a century, but it will eventually fail with catastrophic consequences. See the Federal Reserve system, which, despite its myriad shortcomings over the years, would not be tanking our entire society were Volcker still running it: its not that a Federal Reserve system can't work, its just that when it massively fails, it takes down everything else with it.

If we want to give active govt any chance to succeed, each segment needs to be its own office, and its officials elected independently. We need to elect a Director of Health, and the Board, and the regional and local managers. Who we have running our massive health system cannot be dependent on who we vote for as President because of entirely unrelated international politics, or abortion, or anything else. It has to be its own thing, looked at independently, and voted on independently.

-

Second is culture.

Representative government has been shown to fail in most areas of the world. Thus, there is obviously nothing about representative government itself that is self-sustaining. It relies on the culture of the people to make it work, and keep it going. When people don't value it, or forget what it is, it fails.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/09/18 04:40 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...nk-rules-and-fed-rates-hurt-middle-class

Seems like some more mainstream folks have taken up a similar tack towards the Fed and banking regulation. Interesting.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/10/18 12:00 AM
I have hard time taking this seriously: "The single biggest variable that changed after 2007 was the way banking was conducted and regulated." Reminds me of this: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/10/18 08:29 PM
Well, what, aside from banking conduct and regulation do you think has changed and serves as a larger catalyst?
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/11/18 04:29 AM
One example that comes to mind in the arrival of SV data miners, at best their projects benefit a group of stock investors that tend to be affluent to start with, at worst they benefit only a few dozen founders and early investors.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/11/18 06:18 AM
While I don't doubt that has an impact in regards to overall 'equality' I think the root problem is that others have gotten poorer, not that some people are making out like bandits. If the banking sector was working for Main St in the Midwest and elsewhere, the problems wouldn't be anywhere as acute.

I do think the banking rules and practices are a much larger influence, but I also maintain that a primary driver of, and the best metric for measuring real inequality is the price of money. It is also not a marginal fact that the price of money represents not just the existing state of financial affairs, but also opportunity. Simply put, people who get a better price on money have much more opportunity. 'Bootstrapping' is pretty easy if you have a letter of credit for 10 million at 2%
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/11/18 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Derid
While I don't doubt that has an impact in regards to overall 'equality' I think the root problem is that others have gotten poorer, not that some people are making out like bandits.


I don't think these are two different problems. Wealth inequality is a zero sum game, if you have someone making out like bandit it is only because someone have gotten poorer.

Originally Posted by Derid
If the banking sector was working for Main St in the Midwest and elsewhere, the problems wouldn't be anywhere as acute.


I really don't see how this would make any difference. Fundamental problem is that too many people live hand to mouth. In that mode you are not participating in capital side of equation in any way.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/11/18 08:02 PM
Mid-level capitalism, that is to say, small and medium sized businesses, are a huge employment driver. Growth and investment of existing business is also heavily dependent upon access to reasonably priced capital. We need to remember that wealth can be created and even destroyed, not just distributed. If other sectors are able to generate more wealth, inequality is reduced.


This is honestly too complex of an issue to easily unpack in a few lines, because the price and availability of money impacts everything. Including the startups you mention, and the availability of that money - and the desirability of tossing it into empty shell startups that don't much useful. It also impacts the people who live hand to mouth. It is difficult to get ahead when money you invest either comes with large amounts of risk, or zero returns - yet money you borrow is extremely expensive. Look back earlier in thread where I did quick calc of someone who saved $200 a month.

In a well functioning system, capital serves as a mechanism for creative destruction - people save money because it gives a return, that money is loaned to businesses that utilize that money to change themselves to reflect market conditions, creating more wealth that is distributed back through the chain. This is how a stable middle class comes to exist.

Right now the system is not functioning properly, and is full of massive distortions that are, frankly, unsustainable in the long term. The type of inequality we are seeing is a symptom, not a cause. To wit: taking medicide to feel better, aka, legislatively crushing the .01%ers of SV and such might alleviate some pain in the short term - but will not cure the disease. And the disease is what will ultimately do us in.

Or to put it another way: Taking from the rich to give to the poor is akin to patching our society together with duct tape and bailing wire. Maybe it will become necessary in order to keep afloat long enough to fix the boat, but if we aren't thinking about fixing the boat, all we are doing is buying a bit of time while patting ourselves on the back for what in effect is kicking the can down the road a bit. We're still gonna sink.
Posted By: Sini Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/11/18 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by Derid
We need to remember that wealth can be created and even destroyed, not just distributed. If other sectors are able to generate more wealth, inequality is reduced.


I understand what you are trying to say, but it is still inaccurate. Absolute amount of wealth and its distribution are different concepts. In a hypothetical land of plenty, someone who accumulated twice as much as I have is still twice as rich as I am despite both of us having plenty. Humans are hard-wired for comparative assessment of wealth and you don't actually have to have reach the point of death and starvation for the poor to hit critical point where disaffected populations starts undermining the system.

A few (many?) years ago we had a discussion about effects of wealth inequality on destabilization of governance. All historical data points to US being at the threshold. To the point that I got seriously concerned and got out. Well, now there is Trump. What comes next will be even worse. Hopefully Internet is still running in a decade so we can commiserate on how comparatively sane things were in 2018.
Posted By: Derid Re: Corporate social irresponsibility - 08/11/18 09:38 PM
I wouldn't say it's inaccurate - if say SV guy makes a million, there is less inequality if the Midwest guy makes 100k as opposed to 30k

If the ship was functioning correctly, more of that million would also be flowing to capital investments instead of speculatory asshattery and pyramidish venture vultures.

I agree that we are in a very very bad spot regarding inequality, and we certainly aren't on a sustainable path. My point is simply that we must think beyond playing whack-a-mole and think systemically, which includes but is not limited to things like how capital is actually flowing (or not) through banks and other lenders. And maybe the mallet is needed to some extent.

I certainly wouldn't be adverse to busting up AT&T again, nor a bevy of other would-be monopolists. AI is another major worry that we aren't socially equipped to deal with.
© The KGB Oracle