The Labor Pains Megathread

[DGuller]

I am pretty sure whatever job you are doing during nightshift, you are earning at least as much as if you were doing it during the day, maybe more.

And lets not forget, int his flurry of condescending, that if somebody works in the night shift, it means some other guy is working the day. Cut away the graveyard shift and you just closed a job. But hey, at least don't HAVE to stay up late when you are unemployed!

Arguments based on jobs created or destroyed are almost always full of shit, because they ignore the dynamic nature of the economy.  Jobs follow spending, and people unable to spend by shopping at night will not generally give up on the whole idea of spending the money they allocated for that shopping trip.  There may be some permanent effects on employment from some of the policies, but they have to be second-order in nature and are thus impossible to suss out so easily.

[garbon]

You know what is not a fun time? Streets of New York at 5am. All the drunk kids are in bed and the city is a ghost town.

I love the quiet in NYC at that time.  It's like the whole city is taking a breather before the start of the next day.

Must be nice. I feel: unsafe.

[Tamas]

I am pretty sure whatever job you are doing during nightshift, you are earning at least as much as if you were doing it during the day, maybe more.

And lets not forget, int his flurry of condescending, that if somebody works in the night shift, it means some other guy is working the day. Cut away the graveyard shift and you just closed a job. But hey, at least don't HAVE to stay up late when you are unemployed!

Arguments based on jobs created or destroyed are almost always full of shit, because they ignore the dynamic nature of the economy.  Jobs follow spending, and people unable to spend by shopping at night will not generally give up on the whole idea of spending the money they allocated for that shopping trip.  There may be some permanent effects on employment from some of the policies, but they have to be second-order in nature and are thus impossible to suss out so easily.

What is this. I dont even.

There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.

[alfred russel]

What is this. I dont even.

There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.

If there is more shopping in the day, there is likely to be more clerks needed during the day.

There are tradeoffs. Germany has a better education system than the US, better infrastructure, and higher population density (which is correlated with higher productivity). Despite these advantages, the US GDP per capita is 18% higher (measured by purchase price parity) or 12% higher (nominal). That probably isn't just due to shops closing for lunch, but it does probably have something to do with the social model.

[Tamas]

What is this. I dont even.

There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.

If there is more shopping in the day, there is likely to be more clerks needed during the day.

There are tradeoffs. Germany has a better education system than the US, better infrastructure, and higher population density (which is correlated with higher productivity). Despite these advantages, the US GDP per capita is 18% higher (measured by purchase price parity) or 12% higher (nominal). That probably isn't just due to shops closing for lunch, but it does probably have something to do with the social model.

But you are seeing what you are writing? "I think people in night shifts are losers. The government should ban night shifts". This is the exact fucking thing we should be done with.

[Martinus]

What is this. I dont even.

There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.

If there is more shopping in the day, there is likely to be more clerks needed during the day.

There are tradeoffs. Germany has a better education system than the US, better infrastructure, and higher population density (which is correlated with higher productivity). Despite these advantages, the US GDP per capita is 18% higher (measured by purchase price parity) or 12% higher (nominal). That probably isn't just due to shops closing for lunch, but it does probably have something to do with the social model.

Piketty explains this in his book by saying that German apparent capital value (reflected in the prices of stocks of the German stock exchange) isseveral percentage points lower than those of the US or the UK, for companies of similar results and net asset value.

He says this is because the social model provides for a wider participation of non-shareholders (such as workers councils or local authorities) in the management of German companies. This discount results in an artifically lower GDP than it should be, if it were to reflect the real strength of German economy.

[alfred russel]

What is this. I dont even.

There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.

If there is more shopping in the day, there is likely to be more clerks needed during the day.

There are tradeoffs. Germany has a better education system than the US, better infrastructure, and higher population density (which is correlated with higher productivity). Despite these advantages, the US GDP per capita is 18% higher (measured by purchase price parity) or 12% higher (nominal). That probably isn't just due to shops closing for lunch, but it does probably have something to do with the social model.

But you are seeing what you are writing? "I think people in night shifts are losers. The government should ban night shifts". This is the exact fucking thing we should be done with.

That isn't what I'm writing at all. But I'm supposed to be going to thanksgiving dinner now so I can't explain the point I was trying to make which seems to have missed quite badly.

[Tamas]

I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.

[crazy canuck]

I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.

Yeah, that is pretty much what every idiot who reviewed the book without reading it thought.  You are in good company 

[Martinus]

I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.

That's fine. But what you coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande has anything to do with Piketty? 

[Tamas]

I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.

Yeah, that is pretty much what every idiot who reviewed the book without reading it thought.  You are in good company 

I didnt say I did not like what I have read about his conclusions. I am saying that despite making sense on the surface (although to be fair there is plenty of well formulated criticism out there as well), I can't help thinking that a socialist arguing for more equailty in wealth is hardly a revolutionary revelation.

[Tamas]

I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.

That's fine. But what you coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande has anything to do with Piketty? 

It is highly unfair from me, granted. But it does tell about the views influencing him early, and their colleration to his views today. Still doesn't stop the guy from being right of course, but as I said above, puts his conclusions in context a bit.

[crazy canuck]

I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.

Yeah, that is pretty much what every idiot who reviewed the book without reading it thought.  You are in good company 

I didnt say I did not like what I have read about his conclusions. I am saying that despite making sense on the surface (although to be fair there is plenty of well formulated criticism out there as well), I can't help thinking that a socialist arguing for more equailty in wealth is hardly a revolutionary revelation.

Yeah, that is pretty much what every idiot who reviewed the book without reading it thought.  You are in good company

[Tamas]

Ehhh.

I haven't read his book, true. I have read a number of reviews. Some of them were raving it as the next big revelation in human history, some teared it apart (after reading it), and some were in between.

And what I said is that although I don't think I am correct in doing so, but I can't help drawing a correlation between his poltical views and conclusions reached after his research.

I literally started with a mea culpa. But I still get to be called an idiot. Yay Internet.

[crazy canuck]

Tamas, read the book.  You are making assumptions which are not accurate.  His conclusions are not based on ideology nor are they in any way contraversial.  Unless you think that creating a better education system is a bad idea or that governments should not be better at cracking down on tax evasion.

And yeah, you are an idiot for thinking you know the book from such widely varying secondary sources.