From 2009-2012:
Worker productivity: up 4.5 percent
Median hourly wages: down 2.8 percent.
Cue Comte d'Argent and Ideologue. Go get 'em.
God Bless America! :yeah:
I'm so productive!
That counts as a recovery, eh?
It's weird when economic recovery is completely divorced from the notion of employment recovery. Maybe it's not so weird. Maybe we're just fucked.
Ed anger productivity : -99%
Ed anger laziness: : +99%
Seems like every recovery is a jobless recovery at first.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:41:08 PM
Seems like every recovery is a jobless recovery at first.
Except, for instance, the New Deal.
That one focused on the three Rs - relief, recovery, and reform.
Recent recoveries seem to focus largely on getting the economy back where it was, with precious little expended on relief or reform.
What drives me through the roof is that the economy continues to *grow*, while things get worse and worse for workers. The shiftless fuckers have done a great job convincing people that "things are tough all over", when they aren't - they're not tough at all for the cream of the crop. Fucking corporatist bullshit is what it is.
I thought jobless recoveries were a relatively recent phenomenon
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 03:38:21 PM
It's weird when economic recovery is completely divorced from the notion of employment recovery. Maybe it's not so weird. Maybe we're just fucked.
Not so weird at all. Companies have contracted and have learned to do more with less employees; naturally, those employees remaining are more productive,as they're doing more work to make up for lost labor, and in turn the market has rewarded companies for stockpiling their capital.
Besides, the goal for any company is to reach that ideal ratio of maximized profit, where the most money can be earned using the least amount of employees.
Over time, we'll get where the private sector will continually contract to the point were there's only one company with one CEO overseeing one employee, and a contractor at that. I haven't come up with a name for this theory yet, but when I do I will work Yi's name into it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 04:23:03 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 03:38:21 PM
It's weird when economic recovery is completely divorced from the notion of employment recovery. Maybe it's not so weird. Maybe we're just fucked.
Not so weird at all. Companies have contracted and have learned to do more with less employees; naturally, those employees remaining are more productive,as they're doing more work to make up for lost labor, and in turn the market has rewarded companies for stockpiling their capital.
My company keeps expanding which apparently means that people aren't getting raises unless they are promoted.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 04:23:03 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 03:38:21 PM
It's weird when economic recovery is completely divorced from the notion of employment recovery. Maybe it's not so weird. Maybe we're just fucked.
Not so weird at all. Companies have contracted and have learned to do more with less employees; naturally, those employees remaining are more productive,as they're doing more work to make up for lost labor, and in turn the market has rewarded companies for stockpiling their capital.
Besides, the goal for any company is to reach that ideal ratio of maximized profit, where the most money can be earned using the least amount of employees.
Over time, we'll get where the private sector will continually contract to the point were there's only one company with one CEO overseeing one employee, and a contractor at that. I haven't come up with a name for this theory yet, but when I do I will work Yi's name into it.
Yiconomic Singularity?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2013, 03:46:19 PM
I thought jobless recoveries were a relatively recent phenomenon
I haven't experienced any of the older ones.
I assume most of y'all are in favor of some sort of income redistribution?
If so, what form would you prefer? Monthly check? Refundable tax credit? Make-work jobs for the unemployed and/or underemployed? Housing vouchers?
Who should get it? What's the income cap? 24K for a single, 48 for a family of 4? All 99%?
I'm not a huge fan of income redistribution, but I don't intend these questions ironically. And I think with winner take all markets a reasonable case can be made for redistribution.
Quote from: frunk on July 10, 2013, 04:29:49 PM
Yiconomic Singularity?
You're a win as Wall Street, frunkenstien.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 04:42:22 PM
I assume most of y'all are in favor of some sort of income redistribution?
Can you think of a way to change the corporate culture more toward benefitting employees than we currently see that doesn't involve government redistribution? Serious question.
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 04:56:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 04:42:22 PM
I assume most of y'all are in favor of some sort of income redistribution?
Can you think of a way to change the corporate culture more toward benefitting employees than we currently see that doesn't involve government redistribution? Serious question.
Bring back the unions? Not sure that would be better, since in US, unions are less about organized labor than they are about organized crime.
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 04:56:15 PM
Can you think of a way to change the corporate culture more toward benefitting employees than we currently see that doesn't involve government redistribution? Serious question.
I interpret "corporate culture" as incentive systems. The only way to incentivize managers to pay more in wages than the market will bear is to nationalize everything.
Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2013, 04:59:38 PM
Bring back the unions? Not sure that would be better, since in US, unions are less about organized labor than they are about organized crime.
Unions need a closed system to work. In an open system you would get the same results the UAW generated.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 03:06:34 PM
From 2009-2012:
Worker productivity: up 4.5 percent
Median hourly wages: down 2.8 percent.
Cue Comte d'Argent and Ideologue. Go get 'em.
Who is Cue Comte d'Argent?
CdM?
Are you speaking francois?
I thought Count was Compte, and Argent was silver?
I'm probably totally wrong as always...
Argent is money is French.
Oh...
So Argentine means money?
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 03:41:08 PM
Seems like every recovery is a jobless recovery at first.
Except, for instance, the New Deal.
There wasn't much of a recovery from the Depression until the war.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fblognetwork%2Fedgeofthewest%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F10%2F10%2Funemp1.jpg&hash=032154f8041766480e1ce2ec09f4f191f094d7a2)
On the other hand, as far as IICR none of the recoveries between 1950-2000 were of the jobless variety.
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 05:12:58 PM
Oh...
So Argentine means money?
Silver, actually. From the Latin word for silver, which then became the French word for money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 04:42:22 PM
I assume most of y'all are in favor of some sort of income redistribution?
If so, what form would you prefer? Monthly check? Refundable tax credit? Make-work jobs for the unemployed and/or underemployed? Housing vouchers?
Who should get it? What's the income cap? 24K for a single, 48 for a family of 4? All 99%?
I'm not a huge fan of income redistribution, but I don't intend these questions ironically. And I think with winner take all markets a reasonable case can be made for redistribution.
I'd guess the make-work projects are the best. My old high school is still playing their football games in a stadium built by one of those things back in the 30s. It's a solid asset still providing a function decades later. Much better than just dumping cash into black holes or digging and re-filling ditches.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Except, for instance, the New Deal.
There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.
My company is growing like crazy. Three new hires started this week (all three being newly created positions).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 05:38:53 PM
There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.
Between the deliberate elimination of government and the most popular way to increase of shareholder value, we'll get there soon enough.
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 05:08:56 PM
Who is Cue Comte d'Argent?
Tabulation of the swag?
That portion of the indictment alleging pecuniary gain?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 04:42:22 PM
If so, what form would you prefer? Monthly check? Refundable tax credit? Make-work jobs for the unemployed and/or underemployed? Housing vouchers?
Public works projects and their attendant jobs is probably tops on my list. Further extension of the mortgage assistance program would be a good second. Federal job retraining programs would be another good one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Except, for instance, the New Deal.
There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.
Indeed. There's also a huge difference between 15% and 5%.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 10, 2013, 05:38:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 04:42:22 PM
I assume most of y'all are in favor of some sort of income redistribution?
If so, what form would you prefer? Monthly check? Refundable tax credit? Make-work jobs for the unemployed and/or underemployed? Housing vouchers?
Who should get it? What's the income cap? 24K for a single, 48 for a family of 4? All 99%?
I'm not a huge fan of income redistribution, but I don't intend these questions ironically. And I think with winner take all markets a reasonable case can be made for redistribution.
I'd guess the make-work projects are the best. My old high school is still playing their football games in a stadium built by one of those things back in the 30s. It's a solid asset still providing a function decades later. Much better than just dumping cash into black holes or digging and re-filling ditches.
This.
Not to mention the possibility for monuments, murals, national park maintenance, etc etc etc which could be undertaken in addition to more functional engineering projects.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 05:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Except, for instance, the New Deal.
There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.
Indeed. There's also a huge difference between 15% and 5%.
I'm estimating the difference to be about 10 percentage points in both cases.
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 05:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Except, for instance, the New Deal.
There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.
Indeed. There's also a huge difference between 15% and 5%.
I'm estimating the difference to be about 10 percentage points in both cases.
:yes: That's correct.
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 05:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Except, for instance, the New Deal.
There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.
Indeed. There's also a huge difference between 15% and 5%.
I'm estimating the difference to be about 10 percentage points in both cases.
:D Looks like somebody had his coffee this morning!
Make work projects have a couple drawbacks. A little tough for anyone but young, fit men (cue Meri) to perform outdoor physical labor. Plus it wouldn't affect the incomes of those not in the program. The prompt for this thread was declining wages, not unemployment.
Raise the federal minimum wage to $10-11. That's equivalent, given inflation, to the federal minimum wage considered acceptable in 1969.
That would certainly help wages, but it would hurt the unemployment rate. Would the benifit of higher wages in some jobs outweigh the harm in lost employment in others?
Can we now bury 'trickle down' ?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2013, 07:01:12 PM
That would certainly help wages, but it would hurt the unemployment rate. Would the benifit of higher wages in some jobs outweigh the harm in lost employment in others?
1) It wouldn't hurt the unemployment rate as much as you think. It actually might not hurt it at all. Minimum wage jobs aren't the sort of jobs which are being outsourced or even *can* be outsourced. Call center employees, programmers, etc losing their jobs to Indian workers aren't making minimum wage; they're making at least a couple of dollars an hour more than that and in some cases substantially more than that.
2) Bottom-tier earners receiving a pay hike would almost certainly spend that extra money, boosting the market for non-luxury goods.
3) It seems to me a travesty that we are living in far more prosperous times than the quite prosperous 60s, and yet what is considered an acceptable federal minimum wage has
declined in absolute terms. I'm not even talking about an
increase in the absolute adjusted minimum wage; I'm talking about a wage that just keeps pace with inflation.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2013, 07:01:12 PM
That would certainly help wages, but it would hurt the unemployment rate. Would the benifit of higher wages in some jobs outweigh the harm in lost employment in others?
It would also drive up the cost of domestically produced goods and services and would not affect fat cats very much. Hello, UK prices.
No love for a monthly check? It's the simplest, least-distorting way of transferring income.
The only downside is that it makes it hard to maintain the illusion that the money is being earned.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
It would also drive up the cost of domestically produced goods and services
How did we ever survive the 1960s, then, when the minimum wage was higher relative to inflation?
The fact of the matter is that while wages have been virtually stagnant for the bottom 90% of workers over the last 40 years, the wages of minimum wage earners have declined in absolute terms by about 1/3. Why? And what sort of economic system sees this as not just "unavoidable" but actually beneficial?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 04:56:15 PM
Can you think of a way to change the corporate culture more toward benefitting employees than we currently see that doesn't involve government redistribution? Serious question.
I interpret "corporate culture" as incentive systems. The only way to incentivize managers to pay more in wages than the market will bear is to nationalize everything.
I don't agree with that.
I think there is a lot of room in the theory of how to maximize long term profitability that there could be considerable room for increasing share of corporate resources given to non executive salaries while still operating under the theory of maximizing overall profitability.
You don't have to abandon the idea of making money to decide that it is in your best interests to pay your people more than you absolutely must.
Compte the is the verb 'to count'
Comte is the title 'Count'
Argent is both money and silver.
Comte d'Argent means Count of Money which is CountDeMoney.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
and would not affect fat cats very much
I wouldn't say my goal is to be punitive.
Here's an off-the-cuff idea for an arts-based public works project:
Hold a contest. The goal is to design in as much detail as possible a large-scale public work of art. Artists who can apply are limited to those making, let's say, $24000/yr or less. Minority artists are especially encouraged. The theme would be "the American Dream". Crowdsource popular response to the designs. Top three projects get built, thus employing the artist but more importantly employing the work crews, engineers, etc necessary to complete the projects. Artists get feathers in their caps, too, potentially leading to more commercial work which the fatcats can pay for. And we get some cool public art/monuments/what-have-you out of the deal, too, which might result in more tourist dollars in the areas where the works would be located. Plus we'd get some good global press.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
How did we ever survive the 1960s, then, when the minimum wage was higher relative to inflation?
The 60's were the last hurrah of the American worker. In the 70's we lost our dominant position in car making to well-made, cheaper Japanese imports, our dominant position in steel making to every developing country that thought national prestige demanded a domestic steel industry, and our once vibrant textile industry to every third world country with two old ladies who can sew.
Plus the Fed was running an easy money policy in the belief that low interest rates at a time of full employment was a cost-free method of boosting GDP.
QuoteThe fact of the matter is that while wages have been virtually stagnant for the bottom 90% of workers over the last 40 years, the wages of minimum wage earners have declined in absolute terms by about 1/3. Why? And what sort of economic system sees this as not just "unavoidable" but actually beneficial?
The economic system that values total social utility. Every price distortion introduces dead-weight loss.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 04:42:22 PM
I assume most of y'all are in favor of some sort of income redistribution?
If so, what form would you prefer? Monthly check? Refundable tax credit? Make-work jobs for the unemployed and/or underemployed? Housing vouchers?
Who should get it? What's the income cap? 24K for a single, 48 for a family of 4? All 99%?
I'm not a huge fan of income redistribution, but I don't intend these questions ironically. And I think with winner take all markets a reasonable case can be made for redistribution.
Oh yeah.
Well, first, there's a lot of "make work" jobs that would not just be digging holes and filling them back in. Our infrastructure is garbage. There is a lot of work to be done. Also, there are land wars to be fought in Asia.
Housing vouchers and universal SNAP benefits would be pretty good, but student loans have proven to me, and to anyone with a functioning brain, that subsidization of a desired result, leaving the results to an unregulated market, only leads to parasitism, especially in a country that refuses to legislate economic crimes. So put me down for monthly check for any individual making less than, say, $20k (families can go fuck themselves--we are too many).
But as the future encroaches upon the present? The only long-term solution that would increase aggregate utility is a combination of dole, dieback, and democratic socialism, leading to security without work (which won't be there for most), a smaller population, and the eradication of gross inequality, which is poison to society and which we have seen is even bad for the economy qua economy.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser3303%2Fimageroot%2F2013%2F07%2F20130710_santelli.jpg&hash=90e3d4ed3d8e416c042bbc306f878bd9226e70e5)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 08:04:59 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
How did we ever survive the 1960s, then, when the minimum wage was higher relative to inflation?
The 60's were the last hurrah of the American worker. In the 70's we lost our dominant position in car making to well-made, cheaper Japanese imports, our dominant position in steel making to every developing country that thought national prestige demanded a domestic steel industry, and our once vibrant textile industry to every third world country with two old ladies who can sew.
So we're fucked, then.
QuoteThe economic system that values total social utility. Every price distortion introduces dead-weight loss.
Please explain further. I'm not sure how a system that values total social utility would have disappeared its middle class.
Quote(families can go fuck themselves--we are too many).
Fuck you too buddy. :)
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
The fact of the matter is that while wages have been virtually stagnant for the bottom 90% of workers over the last 40 years, the wages of minimum wage earners have declined in absolute terms by about 1/3. Why? And what sort of economic system sees this as not just "unavoidable" but actually beneficial?
Women.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 10, 2013, 08:09:13 PM
Quote(families can go fuck themselves--we are too many).
Fuck you too buddy. :)
MAH TAX DOLLARS
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
The fact of the matter is that while wages have been virtually stagnant for the bottom 90% of workers over the last 40 years, the wages of minimum wage earners have declined in absolute terms by about 1/3. Why? And what sort of economic system sees this as not just "unavoidable" but actually beneficial?
Women.
Do go on.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!"
But if you elected me, he couldn't. Because drones.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:15:08 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
The fact of the matter is that while wages have been virtually stagnant for the bottom 90% of workers over the last 40 years, the wages of minimum wage earners have declined in absolute terms by about 1/3. Why? And what sort of economic system sees this as not just "unavoidable" but actually beneficial?
Women.
Do go on.
They entered the workforce in large numbers, which lowered the "need" to raise wages.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Please explain further. I'm not sure how a system that values total social utility would have disappeared its middle class.
It's a little tough to do without a chalkboard.
Basically, with a downward sloping demand curve (you're familiar with supply and demand curves, right?) and an upward sloping supply curve, the area under the demand curve and above the price line is consumer/buyer surplus utility and the area below the price line and above the demand curve is producer/seller surplus. If you let the market determine price, at the intersection of supply and demand, you maximize total surplus. That surplus is free happiness (or money in the case of the supplier).
The consumer side is easier to intuit. Let's use Beeb, our resident Apple junkie as an example. He would gladly pay $2,000 for the newest iPhone, he's jonesing that hard. The fact that Apple sells them for only $500 (no idea on the real price) means that Beeb got $2000 worth of Appleitious consumer satsifaction for only $500. He got $1,500 of surplus utility.
Mandating a price other than the market price means some of that surplus area is lost.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
The solution is obviously to open up the gates and import even more people from Mexico, like the Democrats and big business types want to do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 08:24:31 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Please explain further. I'm not sure how a system that values total social utility would have disappeared its middle class.
It's a little tough to do without a chalkboard.
Basically, with a downward sloping demand curve (you're familiar with supply and demand curves, right?) and an upward sloping supply curve, the area under the demand curve and above the price line is consumer/buyer surplus utility and the area below the price line and above the demand curve is producer/seller surplus. If you let the market determine price, at the intersection of supply and demand, you maximize total surplus. That surplus is free happiness (or money in the case of the supplier).
The consumer side is easier to intuit. Let's use Beeb, our resident Apple junkie as an example. He would gladly pay $2,000 for the newest iPhone, he's jonesing that hard. The fact that Apple sells them for only $500 (no idea on the real price) means that Beeb got $2000 worth of Appleitious consumer satsifaction for only $500. He got $1,500 of surplus utility.
Mandating a price other than the market price means some of that surplus area is lost.
The question is what the labor demand curve looks like for low wage workers.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 08:30:31 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
The solution is obviously to open up the gates and import even more people from Mexico, like the Democrats and big business types want to do.
:secret: A more effective way to find out what Democrats want to do is to actually ask them rather then listen to what Right wing blogs say that Democrats want to do.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
people want cheap stuff. American labour is expensive, overseas is cheap. the more jobs you move the more profit you make. That's what I see in the chart anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 08:24:31 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Please explain further. I'm not sure how a system that values total social utility would have disappeared its middle class.
It's a little tough to do without a chalkboard.
Basically, with a downward sloping demand curve (you're familiar with supply and demand curves, right?) and an upward sloping supply curve, the area under the demand curve and above the price line is consumer/buyer surplus utility and the area below the price line and above the demand curve is producer/seller surplus. If you let the market determine price, at the intersection of supply and demand, you maximize total surplus. That surplus is free happiness (or money in the case of the supplier).
The consumer side is easier to intuit. Let's use Beeb, our resident Apple junkie as an example. He would gladly pay $2,000 for the newest iPhone, he's jonesing that hard. The fact that Apple sells them for only $500 (no idea on the real price) means that Beeb got $2000 worth of Appleitious consumer satsifaction for only $500. He got $1,500 of surplus utility.
Mandating a price other than the market price means some of that surplus area is lost.
I'm familiar with supply and demand curves, yes.
I think I understand the argument. I guess my question(s) is (are) a) what other factors could be distorting the market price that the consumer cannot control, and b) while Beeb may have a giant technoboner for Apple products, there are lots of products which he just wants/needs and wants/needs to get a good deal on. I guess my whole problem with looking at it from this standpoint is that such a moral system (because that's what it is, really) ignores the guy who says "fuck Apple products, I'll never be able to own one of those. All I care about is meeting my expenses and taking care of my family." He doesn't get much surplus happiness...and the further his wages decline, he ain't going to get happier.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 08:30:31 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
The solution is obviously to open up the gates and import even more people from Mexico, like the Democrats and big business types want to do.
Mexican do the jobs no one else wants to do. I don't see an out of work suburbaners (ites?) lining up to pick produce
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2013, 08:32:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2013, 08:24:31 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Please explain further. I'm not sure how a system that values total social utility would have disappeared its middle class.
It's a little tough to do without a chalkboard.
Basically, with a downward sloping demand curve (you're familiar with supply and demand curves, right?) and an upward sloping supply curve, the area under the demand curve and above the price line is consumer/buyer surplus utility and the area below the price line and above the demand curve is producer/seller surplus. If you let the market determine price, at the intersection of supply and demand, you maximize total surplus. That surplus is free happiness (or money in the case of the supplier).
The consumer side is easier to intuit. Let's use Beeb, our resident Apple junkie as an example. He would gladly pay $2,000 for the newest iPhone, he's jonesing that hard. The fact that Apple sells them for only $500 (no idea on the real price) means that Beeb got $2000 worth of Appleitious consumer satsifaction for only $500. He got $1,500 of surplus utility.
Mandating a price other than the market price means some of that surplus area is lost.
The question is what the labor demand curve looks like for low wage workers.
Yes, thank you, I think that's what I was getting at in my roundabout layman's way.
I like Mexicans and I want more of them here. Here's why:
1. I like tacos
2. I like low cost roofing and gardening
3. Mexican chicks can be quite HOTT
4. Hybrid vigor (see 3)
Quote from: HVC on July 10, 2013, 08:36:18 PM
Mexican do the jobs no one else wants to do. I don't see an out of work suburbaners (ites?) lining up to pick produce
They would if it paid well enough.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 08:40:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 10, 2013, 08:36:18 PM
Mexican do the jobs no one else wants to do. I don't see an out of work suburbaners (ites?) lining up to pick produce
They would if it paid well enough.
it'll never pay well enough. unless you want to pay 10 bucks for an apple.
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:39:49 PM
I like Mexicans and I want more of them here. Here's why:
1. I like tacos
2. I like low cost roofing and gardening
3. Mexican chicks can be quite HOTT
4. Hybrid vigor (see 3)
I like Mexicans, but I'd rather not keep importing their underclass. I'd like to get more educated, skilled Mexicans.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 08:40:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 10, 2013, 08:36:18 PM
Mexican do the jobs no one else wants to do. I don't see an out of work suburbaners (ites?) lining up to pick produce
They would if it paid well enough.
There we go! So: conservatives should support a raise in the minimum wage because it keeps Mexican immigrants out. :D :P
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
That graph is what America wants. That's the way it is, we like it that way and we're not going to change it. End of story.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 08:42:14 PM
I'd like to get more educated, skilled Mexicans.
more what now? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 08:42:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:39:49 PM
I like Mexicans and I want more of them here. Here's why:
1. I like tacos
2. I like low cost roofing and gardening
3. Mexican chicks can be quite HOTT
4. Hybrid vigor (see 3)
I like Mexicans, but I'd rather not keep importing their underclass. I'd like to get more educated, skilled Mexicans.
at least their underclass are hard workers. I don't get the illegal immigrant hate. they work hard. I get the eurohate with the generations of welfare squatters, but illegal immigrants in the states get no benefits, right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
That graph is what America wants. That's the way it is, we like it that way and we're not going to change it. End of story.
If so, then we are an awful people, and we should well deserve the eventual collapse of our empire.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:45:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
That graph is what America wants. That's the way it is, we like it that way and we're not going to change it. End of story.
If so, then we are an awful people, and we should well deserve the eventual collapse of our empire.
Just misinformed. Well sure there are some people who want that, but most do not.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 08:24:06 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:15:08 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
The fact of the matter is that while wages have been virtually stagnant for the bottom 90% of workers over the last 40 years, the wages of minimum wage earners have declined in absolute terms by about 1/3. Why? And what sort of economic system sees this as not just "unavoidable" but actually beneficial?
Women.
Do go on.
They entered the workforce in large numbers, which lowered the "need" to raise wages.
Hmm.
Quote from: HVC on July 10, 2013, 08:43:55 PM
at least their underclass are hard workers.
That's generally true.
QuoteI don't get the illegal immigrant hate.
I don't hate them. I just don't appreciate them breaking our laws.
Quotethey work hard. I get the eurohate with the generations of welfare squatters, but illegal immigrants in the states get no benefits, right?
In many places they do. Actually, pretty much everywhere they absorb benefits of one sort or another. And they will get access to a lot more once they get amnesty/citizenship-- much more than the tax revenue they will generate.
I'm not totally against some gradual amnesty plan, but it needs to be well thought out, and it needs to be in the best interest of *current* US citizens, not potential future ones.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2013, 08:50:54 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:45:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
That graph is what America wants. That's the way it is, we like it that way and we're not going to change it. End of story.
If so, then we are an awful people, and we should well deserve the eventual collapse of our empire.
Just misinformed. Well sure there are some people who want that, but most do not.
The main problem appears to be that the people who do want that have all or most of the cards in their hands, while those who do not either a) do not object strongly enough, or b) object strongly but lack the ability to change it.
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:43:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 08:42:14 PM
I'd like to get more educated, skilled Mexicans.
more what now? :huh:
Dude, we have educated skilled Mexicans. There was one guy who was working in a warehouse job moving inventory around at my last workplace who had been a civil engineer in Mexico and had I think a Master's degree. WTF was he doing working in a warehouse in Reno? Fuck if I know, but it was apparently still an upgrade for him. His English wasn't that great and I don't know if the certs he had transferred well here or whatever. I guess he couldn't be an engineer in the US, but he still wanted to be here.
All my Mexican friends have college degrees.
Dude, I was kidding... I know about cases like that. :(
I interviewed two guys back in the day who were political refugees from Cuba. Both were former software devs, but their English was so poor that nobody would hire them. The one guy was working in a warehouse too, and when I interviewed him I could tell he was very bright, but... his English :( I tried to get him a job and was able to get him an interview, but the client was like "I like this guy and agree he's smart, but I just cannot communicate with him."
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:58:57 PM
I interviewed two guys back in the day who were political refugees from Cuba.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.starpulse.com%2FPhotos%2FPreviews%2FScarface-movie-12.jpg&hash=cc586c22fd722fbf38e98b1c81418080402c82d1)
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 10, 2013, 08:09:13 PM
Quote(families can go fuck themselves--we are too many).
Fuck you too buddy. :)
And it's not even that. The problem is that family life helps to civilize men. Ide's ideas are as regressive as his politics.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
It's kind of a goofy graph. You are comparing a percentage with a dollar amount. I don't see why they would necessarily track with each other.
Quote from: Neil on July 10, 2013, 09:07:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 10, 2013, 08:09:13 PM
Quote(families can go fuck themselves--we are too many).
Fuck you too buddy. :)
And it's not even that. The problem is that family life helps to civilize men. Ide's ideas are as regressive as his politics.
He's going to outlive Ide, so there's no reason to rub it in.
Industry: Snark.
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:39:49 PM
I like Mexicans and I want more of them here. Here's why:
1. I like tacos
2. I like low cost roofing and gardening
3. Mexican chicks can be quite HOTT
4. Hybrid vigor (see 3)
I am not convinced. We need pictures.
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:39:49 PM
I like Mexicans and I want more of them here. Here's why:
1. I like tacos
2. I like low cost roofing and gardening
3. Mexican chicks can be quite HOTT
4. Hybrid vigor (see 3)
What is the Mexican fat rate?
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 10:42:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:39:49 PM
I like Mexicans and I want more of them here. Here's why:
1. I like tacos
2. I like low cost roofing and gardening
3. Mexican chicks can be quite HOTT
4. Hybrid vigor (see 3)
What is the Mexican fat rate?
Yeah. All the ones I have seen are short and fat.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
If you take a look at it, the percentage of Americans with a job now is actually higher than it was in the early 60's. What's changed is the percentage of Americans in the job market. 50 years ago, a fairly substantial percentage of female Americans were still full-time homemakers and weren't in the job market at all, and nowdays people are more likely to keep working past retirement age as well. So if you want to reduce unemployment and raise wages, there are 2 pretty obvious solutions: first, roll back feminism and get the womenfolk back in the kitchen, and second, make retirement mandatory at a certain age.
And no, I'm not being facetious, but OTOH I'm not seriously suggesting that we rollback feminism, either. I'm saying that the social and legal changes in women's status has unintended economic sideaffects--specifically, by bringing more people into the labor market, it has increase unemployment and decreased wages. (I'm also not saying that it's the only factor in play here.)
Of course, another option is to incentivize one parent staying home (gender irrelevant). Right now, there's no way that millions of families will be able to survive on one paycheck without some assistance.
Make it worthwhile - and possible - for a family to live with only one paycheck, if this is the issue. Again, which gender is irrelevant.
Quote from: dps on July 10, 2013, 10:45:11 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
If you take a look at it, the percentage of Americans with a job now is actually higher than it was in the early 60's. What's changed is the percentage of Americans in the job market. 50 years ago, a fairly substantial percentage of female Americans were still full-time homemakers and weren't in the job market at all, and nowdays people are more likely to keep working past retirement age as well. So if you want to reduce unemployment and raise wages, there are 2 pretty obvious solutions: first, roll back feminism and get the womenfolk back in the kitchen, and second, make retirement mandatory at a certain age.
And no, I'm not being facetious, but OTOH I'm not seriously suggesting that we rollback feminism, either. I'm saying that the social and legal changes in women's status has unintended economic sideaffects--specifically, by bringing more people into the labor market, it has increase unemployment and decreased wages. (I'm also not saying that it's the only factor in play here.)
More women working is less a function of feminism but of households inability to survive on one income. Women working hasn't hasn't caused the decrease in wages but is caused by the decrease in wages. After all it was common for women to work before WWII.
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 11:47:28 PM
Of course, another option is to incentivize one parent staying home (gender irrelevant). Right now, there's no way that millions of families will be able to survive on one paycheck without some assistance.
Make it worthwhile - and possible - for a family to live with only one paycheck, if this is the issue. Again, which gender is irrelevant.
Millions of poor families (assuming two parent household) would not be able to survive on one paycheck.
However, the millions of upper and even middle class families (with two working parents) can survive on one paycheck. But I doubt they would be able to stomach the resulting drop in luxuries and personal/professional "self-worth".
Quote
Besides, the goal for any company is to reach that ideal ratio of maximized profit, where the most money can be earned using the least amount of employees.
The problem with modern business :(
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2013, 12:04:16 AM
Quote
Besides, the goal for any company is to reach that ideal ratio of maximized profit, where the most money can be earned using the least amount of employees.
The problem with modern business :(
That's nonsense.
Yeah, let's ditch the combines and get the harvest in with scythes, it'll reduce unemployment :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 11, 2013, 05:20:56 AM
Yeah, let's ditch the combines and get the harvest in with scythes, it'll reduce unemployment :cool:
It would certainly help with our obesity problem.
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
Well I would just say that I don't understand why they are being charted together as it is clear that there really isn't a correlation.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 11:55:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 11:47:28 PM
Of course, another option is to incentivize one parent staying home (gender irrelevant). Right now, there's no way that millions of families will be able to survive on one paycheck without some assistance.
Make it worthwhile - and possible - for a family to live with only one paycheck, if this is the issue. Again, which gender is irrelevant.
Millions of poor families (assuming two parent household) would not be able to survive on one paycheck.
However, the millions of upper and even middle class families (with two working parents) can survive on one paycheck. But I doubt they would be able to stomach the resulting drop in luxuries and personal/professional "self-worth".
I grew up in a middle class family with only one parent working. We hardly were "wanting."
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 11:55:34 PM
Millions of poor families (assuming two parent household) would not be able to survive on one paycheck.
However, the millions of upper and even middle class families (with two working parents) can survive on one paycheck. But I doubt they would be able to stomach the resulting drop in luxuries and personal/professional "self-worth".
I'm sorry that a person feels a need to leave the house and do something beyond changing diapers and cleaning up baby puke in order to feel a bit of "self-worth". :(
Quote from: dps on July 10, 2013, 10:45:11 PM
nowdays people are more likely to keep working past retirement age as well
Uh, they're doing that because they can't make ends meet on Social Security alone, not because they are feeling really peppy about going to an office job at 70 years old.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
Well I would just say that I don't understand why they are being charted together as it is clear that there really isn't a correlation.
I'm not sure it's as clear as you say it is.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 11:26:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: fhdz on July 10, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
That's quite a graph. I think I felt my heart sink into my stomach.
I guess I can see how some nationless billionaire nomad with an entirely global perspective on the economy might look at that graph and go "yep, that's hunky dorey!" but I can't imagine how any American with even a teaspoon of nationalism left in him would think that was okay.
Well I would just say that I don't understand why they are being charted together as it is clear that there really isn't a correlation.
I'm not sure it's as clear as you say it is.
For most of the graph, declines and increase in employment appear to have no affect at all on corporate profits.
Profits continue to rise even when you see the slight rally on employment in '05-'09. Profits sky rocket in '10-'14 period while employment remains stagnant/low.
I thought the point of the graph was that there was no correlation, though there should have been.
Re: women's participation in the work force - one big factor is all the time saving devices we now have for household chores that used to take many more hours to do. Someone had to stay home to do all that work. That is no longer true and hasnt been for several decades.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 11:55:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 11:47:28 PM
Of course, another option is to incentivize one parent staying home (gender irrelevant). Right now, there's no way that millions of families will be able to survive on one paycheck without some assistance.
Make it worthwhile - and possible - for a family to live with only one paycheck, if this is the issue. Again, which gender is irrelevant.
Millions of poor families (assuming two parent household) would not be able to survive on one paycheck.
However, the millions of upper and even middle class families (with two working parents) can survive on one paycheck. But I doubt they would be able to stomach the resulting drop in luxuries and personal/professional "self-worth".
they might survive, but they'd need to live as they did before: no phone, no tv, no internet, no car.
Phone/internet/tv aren't all that expensive.
Obamaphone!!!!
Nobody likes my New Dealish public art contest :weep:
Quote from: merithyn on July 11, 2013, 11:16:40 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 11:55:34 PM
Millions of poor families (assuming two parent household) would not be able to survive on one paycheck.
However, the millions of upper and even middle class families (with two working parents) can survive on one paycheck. But I doubt they would be able to stomach the resulting drop in luxuries and personal/professional "self-worth".
I'm sorry that a person feels a need to leave the house and do something beyond changing diapers and cleaning up baby puke in order to feel a bit of "self-worth". :(
See, it's this kind of ignorant attitude that causes the stigma against people who do not want to work full-time; that there is no "worth" in self, home, or community. There are plenty of projects and activities when "not working", such as music, art, reading, writing, local theatre, community events, volunteering, visiting friends/neighbors, church, managing assets/investments, homeschooling, mentoring, tutoring, meditation, gaming, gardening/farming, etc. :wacko:
If you want to "prove your ambition", you can easily turn home/community commitment later into a family business, local political office, or leadership in a non-profit organization.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 11, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Phone/internet/tv aren't all that expensive.
Bullshit. :glare:
My combined cell phone/internet/cable bill tops $500.
That's what happens when you've got five smartphone lines on your cellphone bill.
Quote from: merithyn on July 11, 2013, 05:22:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 11, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Phone/internet/tv aren't all that expensive.
Bullshit. :glare:
My combined cell phone/internet/cable bill tops $500.
That's what happens when you've got five smartphone lines on your cellphone bill.
So it's the luxury spending that's doing you in?
Quote from: merithyn on July 11, 2013, 05:22:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 11, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Phone/internet/tv aren't all that expensive.
Bullshit. :glare:
My combined cell phone/internet/cable bill tops $500.
That's what happens when you've got five smartphone lines on your cellphone bill.
Tell me that's per year and not monthly ? :unsure:
And yes tv/internet is relatively cheap, it's energy costs whether heating or transport that really clobber poor households.
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2013, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 11, 2013, 05:22:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 11, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Phone/internet/tv aren't all that expensive.
Bullshit. :glare:
My combined cell phone/internet/cable bill tops $500.
That's what happens when you've got five smartphone lines on your cellphone bill.
So it's the luxury spending that's doing you in?
Exactly.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 11:16:24 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 10, 2013, 11:55:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 11:47:28 PM
Of course, another option is to incentivize one parent staying home (gender irrelevant). Right now, there's no way that millions of families will be able to survive on one paycheck without some assistance.
Make it worthwhile - and possible - for a family to live with only one paycheck, if this is the issue. Again, which gender is irrelevant.
Millions of poor families (assuming two parent household) would not be able to survive on one paycheck.
However, the millions of upper and even middle class families (with two working parents) can survive on one paycheck. But I doubt they would be able to stomach the resulting drop in luxuries and personal/professional "self-worth".
I grew up in a middle class family with only one parent working. We hardly were "wanting."
Is this the John McCain definition of Middle Class?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 09:05:55 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:58:57 PM
I interviewed two guys back in the day who were political refugees from Cuba.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.starpulse.com%2FPhotos%2FPreviews%2FScarface-movie-12.jpg&hash=cc586c22fd722fbf38e98b1c81418080402c82d1)
I wish. :( These dudes were smarter and nerdier. Interestingly one was named Vladimir and the other Yuri. I guess I can see why Russian first names might have been popular in Cuba back in the day. :sleep:
Russian names are popular throughout Latin America. E.g. Vladimir Guerrero.
Quote from: merithyn on July 11, 2013, 05:22:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 11, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Phone/internet/tv aren't all that expensive.
Bullshit. :glare:
My combined cell phone/internet/cable bill tops $500.
That's what happens when you've got five smartphone lines on your cellphone bill.
So get rid of the smartphones and maybe a few channels, save $400/mo.
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2013, 08:39:49 PM
I like Mexicans and I want more of them here. Here's why:
1. I like tacos
2. I like low cost roofing and gardening
3. Mexican chicks can be quite HOTT
4. Hybrid vigor (see 3)
I am not convinced. We need pictures.
:huh: Not sure if serious....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F64%2FEva_Longoria_2012.jpg%2F220px-Eva_Longoria_2012.jpg&hash=588f9b713d7faf2e033f35bf4bf118f933264b7d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trendfashion2013.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2F26_jessica_alba.jpg&hash=a4c627b0c2485a375d0dd156d0798afa37cfece1)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F3d610c12d4b005baae61177d0d55ac8f%2Ftumblr_mhvj5jxZuf1qcm2kso1_r1_500.jpg&hash=d0f271540a9ae45c41cfd65d3526808e7cea5d06)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fskammedia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Fsalma-hayek3-300x427.jpg&hash=5ffc4c68136ca3a390c2107f0805d6e0e9b947da)
Nowhere close to Sofia Vergara. South America ftw.
I have a standing order for Jessica Alba. Thanks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
I have a standing order for Jessica Alba. Thanks.
Something's definitely standing. HEYOHHHHHHH
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
I have a standing order for Jessica Alba. Thanks.
Something's definitely standing. HEYOHHHHHHH
Too late. Wally the one eyed wonder torpedo was already deployed this evening.
The hottest Mexican chick is that one who was in Nacho Libre. She's like Penelope Cruz without the horse nose.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2013, 07:17:54 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
I have a standing order for Jessica Alba. Thanks.
Something's definitely standing. HEYOHHHHHHH
Too late. Wally the one eyed wonder torpedo was already deployed this evening.
And too late to pop another Viagra :(
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
The hottest Mexican chick is that one who was in Nacho Libre. She's like Penelope Cruz without the horse nose.
Selma Hayek. Thems some big ole boobies.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 07:23:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2013, 07:17:54 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
I have a standing order for Jessica Alba. Thanks.
Something's definitely standing. HEYOHHHHHHH
Too late. Wally the one eyed wonder torpedo was already deployed this evening.
And too late to pop another Viagra :(
Let me lay in my wet spot in peace.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 11, 2013, 05:03:04 PM
See, it's this kind of ignorant attitude that causes the stigma against people who do not want to work full-time; that there is no "worth" in self, home, or community. There are plenty of projects and activities when "not working", such as music, art, reading, writing, local theatre, community events, volunteering, visiting friends/neighbors, church, managing assets/investments, homeschooling, mentoring, tutoring, meditation, gaming, gardening/farming, etc. :wacko:
If you want to "prove your ambition", you can easily turn home/community commitment later into a family business, local political office, or leadership in a non-profit organization.
Hey, dumbfuck. I was a stay-at-home mom for eight years. I think I'm a little better placed to say what that means than you do. And I loved it for the time I did it. But it's not for everyone anymore than being a doctor or a lawyer is.
for everyone. Trying to shoehorn someone into it won't help our society.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 04:29:20 PM
Nobody likes my New Dealish public art contest :weep:
I do, fhdz, I do. :console: I fear it's just a little too "Portlandia" for this set, though. :(
There was actually a fair amount of that kind of stuff in Philly, mainly through the Mural Arts Project; taking underemployed 20s-30s artists and setting them with a bunch of inner-city middle schoolers to paint some of the endless dreary ass-ends of dilapidated row-house blocks. I had a couple friends involved in it, but it paid like $300 for the whole weeks-long project, so not all that viable.
Quote from: dps on July 10, 2013, 10:45:11 PM
If you take a look at it, the percentage of Americans with a job now is actually higher than it was in the early 60's. What's changed is the percentage of Americans in the job market. 50 years ago, a fairly substantial percentage of female Americans were still full-time homemakers and weren't in the job market at all, and nowdays people are more likely to keep working past retirement age as well. So if you want to reduce unemployment and raise wages, there are 2 pretty obvious solutions: first, roll back feminism and get the womenfolk back in the kitchen, and second, make retirement mandatory at a certain age.
But it may be the case that 50 years ago was the aberration and what's changed is to do with class. I think there's a sort of period drama view of the past but if you think back a hundred years there were huge numbers of women working. In rural communities it was essential for women to help in small or even tenant farms. If you were in a city all of those jobs done by time-saving electronic devices were done by working class women in service. In London certainly they were also working in pubs, in cafes, in laundries and if not employed then often doing work on the side for, say, a local seamstress.
I think women not working in the immediate post-war era was more unusual than women working. What's changed is the relative status of a woman who doesn't work and the sorts of jobs a woman can enter.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 12, 2013, 01:05:12 AM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 04:29:20 PM
Nobody likes my New Dealish public art contest :weep:
I do, fhdz, I do. :console: I fear it's just a little too "Portlandia" for this set, though. :(
Sigh.
QuoteThere was actually a fair amount of that kind of stuff in Philly, mainly through the Mural Arts Project; taking underemployed 20s-30s artists and setting them with a bunch of inner-city middle schoolers to paint some of the endless dreary ass-ends of dilapidated row-house blocks. I had a couple friends involved in it, but it paid like $300 for the whole weeks-long project, so not all that viable.
Yeah, you'd have to pay people at least laborer's wages for it to be of use, and the projects would have to be fairly large in scope so you could employ a number of people.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 04:29:20 PM
Nobody likes my New Dealish public art contest :weep:
Most of the WPA projects that I've seen were paintings of pioneers, farmers (in smaller towns) and factories (in Detroit.) So when you posted that I had an image of socialist realist paintings of barristas and cubicle workers.
Here's a list of WPA murals in Michigan: http://www.wpamurals.com/michigan.htm (http://www.wpamurals.com/michigan.htm)
These hung at my wife's high school:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wpamurals.com%2Froyaloa1.jpg&hash=9246419e996644a4e510ef8ec8797090c04d5ed1)
General Macomb names the Royal Oak
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wpamurals.com%2Froyaloa2.jpg&hash=0a7998f9ba82c2007d6b3ebe58f21c98c7543180)
Career paths
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wpamurals.com%2Froyaloa3.jpg&hash=c63b423777cc5e0a8e24340a03e4ac4623b62719)
The value of arts, culture and science.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 15, 2013, 06:42:07 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wpamurals.com%2Froyaloa2.jpg&hash=0a7998f9ba82c2007d6b3ebe58f21c98c7543180)
Career paths
Where are the pimps, pushers and hos?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2013, 06:49:06 PM
Where are the pimps, pushers and hos?
:lol:
CB went to high school in the vanilla suburbs. For people outside of Detroit, though, it doesn't seem to matter. I have a cousin who grew up in the whitest of Detroit's suburbs. She's a teacher now in the city of Memphis. She tells her students she's from Detroit and they don't dare act up.
Quote from: merithyn on July 11, 2013, 05:22:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 11, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Phone/internet/tv aren't all that expensive.
Bullshit. :glare:
My combined cell phone/internet/cable bill tops $500.
That's what happens when you've got five smartphone lines on your cellphone bill.
Whoa! That's a lot. Mine is, like, $120.
Now, I understand 100% that your kids need phones. If they didn't have them, they'd be labelled poors. Since this is Amerika, that's socially damaging, so I don't begrudge you a penny on that score, although (I haven't read it yet) I bet a lot of people have.
But you need to drop that cable. I gave up TV service a while back. Saves like $60 a month.
Also, you need to quit spending like $300 a month on movies. That's just wasteful.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2013, 07:51:38 PM
Now, I understand 100% that your kids need phones. If they didn't have them, they'd be labelled poors. Since this is Amerika, that's socially damaging, so I don't begrudge you a penny on that score, although (I haven't read it yet) I bet a lot of people have.
No one has smart phones in my family. Basic plan costs 25 bucks a month per line.
I know you must. :unsure:
If not, I'll be really flabbergasted and a lot of my preconceived notions about you, New York, and its upwardly mobile quasi-bohemian class will be undermined.
Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that a smartphone was much akin to a badge of basic economic worth amongst the youth (and people our age -_- ).
Also, you need to answer my question in TBR, because I'm 99% sure you're fucking with me.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2013, 08:06:14 PM
I know you must. :unsure:
If not, I'll be really flabbergasted and a lot of my preconceived notions about you, New York, and its upwardly mobile quasi-bohemian class will be undermined.
Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that a smartphone was much akin to a badge of basic economic worth amongst the youth (and people our age -_- ).
Oh I get shit all the time for it. Including from an underling at work, one day. I looked at him and then said, it's a question of priorities. I wanted to live in Manhattan and own a car while you wanted an iPhone and were content to live in NJ with your parents.
But really, it's an expense I don't care for and there's always someone with an iPhone at reach if something needs to be looked up. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2013, 07:51:38 PM
Whoa! That's a lot. Mine is, like, $120.
Now, I understand 100% that your kids need phones. If they didn't have them, they'd be labelled poors. Since this is Amerika, that's socially damaging, so I don't begrudge you a penny on that score, although (I haven't read it yet) I bet a lot of people have.
But you need to drop that cable. I gave up TV service a while back. Saves like $60 a month.
Also, you need to quit spending like $300 a month on movies. That's just wasteful.
Cable >>>>> internet on the go. Just plan your trip beforehand.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2013, 08:06:14 PM
I know you must. :unsure:
If not, I'll be really flabbergasted and a lot of my preconceived notions about you, New York, and its upwardly mobile quasi-bohemian class will be
I also don't have a smartphone, just a company issue vintage blackberry.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2013, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2013, 08:06:14 PM
I know you must. :unsure:
If not, I'll be really flabbergasted and a lot of my preconceived notions about you, New York, and its upwardly mobile quasi-bohemian class will be
I also don't have a smartphone, just a company issue vintage blackberry.
Same. While I'd love an iPhone, why pay for one when the government gives me a (admittedly dated) BB for free, and tells me they don't care if I make personal calls on it as long as I don't go overboard?
I don't have a phone.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 11:19:31 PM
Same. While I'd love an iPhone, why pay for one when the government gives me a (admittedly dated) BB for free, and tells me they don't care if I make personal calls on it as long as I don't go overboard?
I carry both a Galaxy S4 (personal use) and a Blackberry (corporate use). I could get my Galaxy covered by work and ditch the BB, but I like having a device with a keyboard even if it's shitty in pretty much every other manner.
My cell phone costs me $100 worth of minutes a year. I never use that up and have left over minutes when I renew. I just paid $15 to extend a month while I decide if I want to get some kind of phone or service upgrade.
Cable TV for me is about $120 monthly, includes all the premium channels. (The channels get a lot cheaper the more I get, so dropping one would only save me less than 10 bucks.) That's bundled with Internet and cable phone to bring it all to about $200. Phone part is about $25, not bad and a lot cheaper than my previous separate land line.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2013, 08:06:14 PM
I know you must. :unsure:
If not, I'll be really flabbergasted and a lot of my preconceived notions about you, New York, and its upwardly mobile quasi-bohemian class will be undermined.
Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that a smartphone was much akin to a badge of basic economic worth amongst the youth (and people our age -_- ).
I lacked a phone for years - they made me take a Blackberry, but I kept it in my office. I still lack access, deliberately, to office email.
The reason: if I let it, work would take over my entire life. I work long hours but when I'm home, I'm done until the next day.
Fortunately, I work in a niche area where I can get away with such slackness. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2013, 08:43:50 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2013, 08:06:14 PM
I know you must. :unsure:
If not, I'll be really flabbergasted and a lot of my preconceived notions about you, New York, and its upwardly mobile quasi-bohemian class will be undermined.
Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that a smartphone was much akin to a badge of basic economic worth amongst the youth (and people our age -_- ).
I lacked a phone for years - they made me take a Blackberry, but I kept it in my office. I still lack access, deliberately, to office email.
The reason: if I let it, work would take over my entire life. I work long hours but when I'm home, I'm done until the next day.
Fortunately, I work in a niche area where I can get away with such slackness. ;)
Everyone who works around me or with me has a blackberry. I do not. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2013, 08:56:05 AM
Everyone who works around me or with me has a blackberry. I do not. :)
:cheers:
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2013, 08:56:05 AM
Everyone who works around me or with me has a blackberry. I do not. :)
I miss my Crackberry. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 09:04:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2013, 08:56:05 AM
Everyone who works around me or with me has a blackberry. I do not. :)
I miss my Crackberry. :(
I already do enough work at odd hours. I don't need an extra device that encourages me to do work when not near a computer.
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2013, 09:13:48 AM
I already do enough work at odd hours. I don't need an extra device that encourages me to do work when not near a computer.
I agree, but I just liked how light and thin it was compared to my iHipster.
I used to lock my work phone in my desk on Friday. Lolz.