Page 153 of 154 FirstFirst ... 53103143151152153154 LastLast
Results 1,521 to 1,530 of 1532

Thread: Walmart workers demand better wages

  1. #1521
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Say I can afford $5 and it costs $100. Even you lower it to $80 you have not made it accessible.

    Medicine will not lower enough, can't lower enough to improve access enough to include a significant number of people.
    But... you are still paying that $100 and extra in premiums... That's my whole point. I'd rather lower it to $80, and then people can just save what they otherwise would pay in premiums, and sit on it until they need to use it themselves.

  2. #1522
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    But... you are still paying that $100 and extra in premiums... That's my whole point. I'd rather lower it to $80, and then people can just save what they otherwise would pay in premiums, and sit on it until they need to use it themselves.
    Until the bill comes they can't pay at all, then services either are denied, or we pass it on to someone else. And people working paycheck to paycheck usually save very little. We might encourage more saving, but our economy requires people spend. And many, well, it's just unrealisitic to expect that there won't be large numbers of people simply without care. All market based solutions end with us either denying care, or passing that on to others.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #1523
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Until the bill comes they can't pay at all, then services either are denied, or we pass it on to someone else. And people working paycheck to paycheck usually save very little. We might encourage more saving, but our economy requires people spend. And many, well, it's just unrealisitic to expect that there won't be large numbers of people simply without care. All market based solutions end with us either denying care, or passing that on to others.
    Then just require pay checks automatically contribute to the accounts, and have the government subsidize low income worker's accounts. I'm okay with a mandate to save... not so much a mandate to buy a for profit companies' service.


    And like I said... our system wastes an enormous amount of money in the delivery of health care through insurance agencies.

  4. #1524
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    MIT is a public university?

    I'm not responding to the rest. I have yet to see you provide a single source/proof/etc besides that one graph, which by the way didn't even disprove my point that the rich lost a greater % of wealth after 2007. All you are doing is rephrasing everything I say in your own idealogical rhetoric. My main points are this, and I'm not repeating them A. Capitalism is growing the world economy B. The world middle class is exploding, with most of the growth coming in capitalist Asia & C. Reductions in poverty+ growth based solely on nonrenewable resources (Venezuela) and little foreign investment and trade or infrastructure development. If you would like to attempt disprove my main points with actual sources instead of your own person vantage point, then maybe I can have an actual debate with you.
    Its not public but its hugely publically funded and not for profit.

    Of coarse the rich lost a greater percentage of wealth ... but thats because the HAD a much greater percentage of wealth ... they still got a bigger slice of the pie though.

    A. I agree, Capitalism is growing the world economy, but in doing so its creating internal contradictions and ever growing externalities that will lead it to collapse.

    B. That growth is coming from Asian style capitalism, i.e. authoritarian, state capitalism.

    C. You havn't shown that it is solely based on nonrenewable resources, and that Venzuela isn't building their economy in other ways, nor have you responded to my points about foreign investment, and so on, I've responded to these points but if you don't like them thats your problem.

  5. #1525
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Its not public but its hugely publically funded and not for profit.

    Of coarse the rich lost a greater percentage of wealth ... but thats because the HAD a much greater percentage of wealth ... they still got a bigger slice of the pie though.

    A. I agree, Capitalism is growing the world economy, but in doing so its creating internal contradictions and ever growing externalities that will lead it to collapse.

    B. That growth is coming from Asian style capitalism, i.e. authoritarian, state capitalism.

    C. You havn't shown that it is solely based on nonrenewable resources, and that Venzuela isn't building their economy in other ways, nor have you responded to my points about foreign investment, and so on, I've responded to these points but if you don't like them thats your problem.
    "For profit" universities generally give unaccredited degrees with zero value.
    But as a student at the second largest university in the U.S. by size, I can tell you even public universities run very much like a for profit company, they seek to maximize endowments, maximize sports related revenues, maximize exposure, maximize reputation, etc etc. And while the school pays our president a fixed salary, the board of trustees gives him bonuses based on performance.

    Thats not what I was saying at all. They lost a greater percentage of their wealth then the poor did. "From 2007 to 2008, the richest 1% of Americans lost 8.4% of their income, compared with a 2.6% drop in earnings for the average America. The very richest, the top .01% of Americans, saw their income drop even further, by 12.7%." The rich in the recession: The poor rich | The Economist

    I don't know if you know any kind of basic math, but if my wealth falls 10%, and your wealth falls 5%, no matter what the actual amount of wealth either of us has, I got relatively more poor than you did. So If I had more money originally, then the wealth gap between us shrunk. If I had less money, it grew. The rich by definition have more money than the average American so therefore BY DEFINITION, income inequality shrank from 2007-2008.

    A. So first you make an argument to unpredictability; now you are making an argument to the future. If the externatilities were so ever growing, then the U.S. should've seen a second great depression, and capitalism would've collapsed. It didn't. But if you want to claim that somewhere in the future you are going to be proven right, then burden of proof is on you for this one.

    B. I've stated at least three times, China has been statist for the better part of the last 100 years. But they were authoritative and not growing, actually... it was quite the contrary (Great Leap Forward ring a bell?), and now that they have opened their markets, and allowed capitialism to direct investment into their country, they are growing.




    C. I'll respond to both in one swoop. Capitalism IS the foreign investment. They are not some how separate. It is capitalist countries that are doing the foreign investing, and capitalism embracing countries who are receiving the investment. Arguing that they are growing due to global investment is proving my point. The only way that investment stops, is if the leftist labor unions and naive student activist groups make a big enough fuss about it, or those countries suddenly shut themselves down to open markets. Capitalism itself won't end the investment in those countries, it will be something other than capitalism which does that.

    Now, Venezuela (I keep using them because they are pretty much South American socialism in a nutshell) on the other hand will fail when they run out of oil money. I'll show you why they are reliant on solely nonrenewable resources.

    1. They have a piss poor manufacturing sector "Manufacturing contributed 15% of GDP in 2009. The manufacturing sector is experiencing severe difficulties, amidst lack of investment and accusations of mismanagement." Venezuelas Aluminum Industry Operates At 29 Of Capacity - Economia - El Universal "

    "José Guerra, the director of the School of Economy, Central University of Venezuela (UCV), blamed overvaluation of the domestic currency, price control and violation of property rights for the poor performance." Venezuelas Aluminum And Steel Production Below 1997 Numbers - Economia - El Universal

    2. Atrocious agricultural management "Since 2003, Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and these price controls have been causing shortages and hoarding.[32] In January 2008, Chavez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela.[33] In February 2009, Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.[34] In May 2010, Chavez ordered the military to seize 120 tons of food from Empresas Polar.[35] In March 2009, Chavez set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss.[36] Chávez has nationalized many large farms. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state." Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under government ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."[37] Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.[38] In 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.[39] In May 2010, after price controls caused shortages of beef, at least 40 butchers were arrested, and some of them were held at a military base and later strip searched by police.[40]"

    Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    3. Of course, the proof is in the pudding. Oil money. it is completely depend on oil.
    '80 percent of the country’s total export revenue, contributes about half of the central government’s income, and is responsible for about one-third of the country’s gross domestic product"
    Venezuela's Oil-Based Economy - Council on Foreign Relations

    Therefore we CAN CONCLUDE that Hugo Chavez and the centralized government has no idea how to expand the economy, and is expanding due to publicly realized oil profits. Their economy may be "growing" in the sense that the total amount of money they get from oil goes up every year, so the total amount of money they can invest keeps going up. But considering those investments are not producing any sort of return, the actual GDP growth is strictly based off oil putting more money into their economy. So when that oil money runs out, they will pretty much be SOL, considering they are failing miserably to actually develop any sort of industry.

    Now, if it were multinationals who were managing those investments, you can be damn sure that factories wouldn't be producing at 29% capacity, food wouldn't be rotting openly in ports, and supermarket shelves wouldn't be completely bare.

  6. #1526
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    "For profit" universities generally give unaccredited degrees with zero value.
    But as a student at the second largest university in the U.S. by size, I can tell you even public universities run very much like a for profit company, they seek to maximize endowments, maximize sports related revenues, maximize exposure, maximize reputation, etc etc. And while the school pays our president a fixed salary, the board of trustees gives him bonuses based on performance.
    Yeah ... But they are still not for profit, and thus not 100% dependant on ever growing profits, of coarse you still want to maximise revenue within reason, but the difference is universities can internalize externalities and take into account social effects.

    Thats not what I was saying at all. They lost a greater percentage of their wealth then the poor did. "From 2007 to 2008, the richest 1% of Americans lost 8.4% of their income, compared with a 2.6% drop in earnings for the average America. The very richest, the top .01% of Americans, saw their income drop even further, by 12.7%." The rich in the recession: The poor rich | The Economist
    Oh ... Ok ... they lost a greater percentage of their own wealth, that doesn't suprise me at all, nor does it really change my point.

    I don't know if you know any kind of basic math, but if my wealth falls 10%, and your wealth falls 5%, no matter what the actual amount of wealth either of us has, I got relatively more poor than you did. So If I had more money originally, then the wealth gap between us shrunk. If I had less money, it grew. The rich by definition have more money than the average American so therefore BY DEFINITION, income inequality shrank from 2007-2008.
    2007-2008 ... Ok, but we'd have to include the post initial crisis years, also I personally don't buy the whole 1% thing, its more like .001%.

    A. So first you make an argument to unpredictability; now you are making an argument to the future. If the externatilities were so ever growing, then the U.S. should've seen a second great depression, and capitalism would've collapsed. It didn't. But if you want to claim that somewhere in the future you are going to be proven right, then burden of proof is on you for this one.
    I'm arguing that what stopped Capitalism from collapsing was ever growing state bailouts and saving.

    B. I've stated at least three times, China has been statist for the better part of the last 100 years. But they were authoritative and not growing, actually... it was quite the contrary (Great Leap Forward ring a bell?), and now that they have opened their markets, and allowed capitialism to direct investment into their country, they are growing.
    Sure, but you have too see the type of investing China is allowing, its not by any means "free" infact is extremely controlled by the state, so really its a huge influx of capital, but still mostly under the control of the state.

    C. I'll respond to both in one swoop. Capitalism IS the foreign investment. They are not some how separate. It is capitalist countries that are doing the foreign investing, and capitalism embracing countries who are receiving the investment. Arguing that they are growing due to global investment is proving my point. The only way that investment stops, is if the leftist labor unions and naive student activist groups make a big enough fuss about it, or those countries suddenly shut themselves down to open markets. Capitalism itself won't end the investment in those countries, it will be something other than capitalism which does that.
    Not necessarily ... there are many different types of investment, for example would you consider Chinese state companies buying up Canadian private oil companies "capitalism?" Also I am NOT against investment, I am saying you should recieve investment from a position of strength, investment in Sweden is gonna be done in a way where Sweden Benefits a lot more than investment, say in the Congo, where the local economy has very little bargaining power.

    Now, Venezuela (I keep using them because they are pretty much South American socialism in a nutshell) on the other hand will fail when they run out of oil money. I'll show you why they are reliant on solely nonrenewable resources.

    1. They have a piss poor manufacturing sector "Manufacturing contributed 15% of GDP in 2009. The manufacturing sector is experiencing severe difficulties, amidst lack of investment and accusations of mismanagement." Venezuelas Aluminum Industry Operates At 29 Of Capacity - Economia - El Universal "

    "José Guerra, the director of the School of Economy, Central University of Venezuela (UCV), blamed overvaluation of the domestic currency, price control and violation of property rights for the poor performance." Venezuelas Aluminum And Steel Production Below 1997 Numbers - Economia - El Universal

    2. Atrocious agricultural management "Since 2003, Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and these price controls have been causing shortages and hoarding.[32] In January 2008, Chavez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela.[33] In February 2009, Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.[34] In May 2010, Chavez ordered the military to seize 120 tons of food from Empresas Polar.[35] In March 2009, Chavez set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss.[36] Chávez has nationalized many large farms. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state." Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under government ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."[37] Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.[38] In 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.[39] In May 2010, after price controls caused shortages of beef, at least 40 butchers were arrested, and some of them were held at a military base and later strip searched by police.[40]"

    Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    3. Of course, the proof is in the pudding. Oil money. it is completely depend on oil.
    '80 percent of the country’s total export revenue, contributes about half of the central government’s income, and is responsible for about one-third of the country’s gross domestic product"
    Venezuela's Oil-Based Economy - Council on Foreign Relations

    Therefore we CAN CONCLUDE that Hugo Chavez and the centralized government has no idea how to expand the economy, and is expanding due to publicly realized oil profits. Their economy may be "growing" in the sense that the total amount of money they get from oil goes up every year, so the total amount of money they can invest keeps going up. But considering those investments are not producing any sort of return, the actual GDP growth is strictly based off oil putting more money into their economy. So when that oil money runs out, they will pretty much be SOL, considering they are failing miserably to actually develop any sort of industry.

    Now, if it were multinationals who were managing those investments, you can be damn sure that factories wouldn't be producing at 29% capacity, food wouldn't be rotting openly in ports, and supermarket shelves wouldn't be completely bare.
    Venezuela is NOT south american socialism in a nutshell, the different leftists are doing much different things, you cannot compare Brazils model with equadors with venezuelas, just like people saying "the nordic model" is misleading since there isn't just one model.

    1. Compare that to American manufacturing .... ALL manufacturing is having difficulties, even in China, due to the crisis and instability of the US market. However Chavez's government HAS inproved SIGNIFICANTLY non oil manufacturing.

    owimage003.jpg
    owimage002-2.jpg

    So saying "oh they have problems" is easy, everyone has problems, but the fact is they are doing BETTER.

    2. Its easy to point out isolated events and anti-Chavista's opinions, by 2008, self sufficiency was attained (for the first time) in corn, rice and pork, increasing production 132% for corn, 71-92% for corn, and 77% for pork since 1998 .... in 2010 there has been a 48% increase in lands under cultivation since 1998, and they are increasing production for other staples

    Agriculture in Venezuela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    3. Again ... compare BEFORE Chaves to AFTER chavez and we see the difference.

    owimage002-2.jpgowimage002-3.jpg
    owimage005.jpg

  7. #1527
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Yeah ... But they are still not for profit, and thus not 100% dependant on ever growing profits, of coarse you still want to maximise revenue within reason, but the difference is universities can internalize externalities and take into account social effects.
    Yes they are... The profits just go to something besides shareholders, IE new lab equipment, a new football stadium, new athletic facilities, etc.

    And take into account social effects? Give me a break, my tuition has gone up 15% every year. But I'm fine with that, because the value of my degree goes up with the prestige of the university.

    You keep stating how dependent capitalism is on ever growing profits yet for the last 250 years or so we have had.... ever growing profits. :O

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Oh ... Ok ... they lost a greater percentage of their own wealth, that doesn't suprise me at all, nor does it really change my point.



    2007-2008 ... Ok, but we'd have to include the post initial crisis years, also I personally don't buy the whole 1% thing, its more like .001%.
    Obviously, I'm not disputing that they problably are only down 4-5% now, where are the rest are . But it disproved your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    I'm arguing that what stopped Capitalism from collapsing was ever growing state bailouts and saving.
    No.. because in the case of your "externalities" which I'm guessing is just a fancy way of saying over-leveraged growth, that would just compound the problem.

    And do you know the definition of collapse? If a building collapses.... do you know of any way of catching it midair and putting it back up straight? So you can't say capitalism collapsed in 2007, considering unemployment only peaked at around 10% and it probably would be below 7% right now if Greece wasn't freezing the credit markets.


    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Sure, but you have too see the type of investing China is allowing, its not by any means "free" infact is extremely controlled by the state, so really its a huge influx of capital, but still mostly under the control of the state.
    But the state isn't the source of it. That's my point. So they can regulate it to an extent, but at the same time if they were too autocratic about it, companies would think its too risky to invest there. But that's only China. Countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia etc. are not nearly that statist, and they are still seeing massive economic growth due to the investment.
    Point is, the country has to attract the foreign investment, it doesn't just appear like magic. Asia countries are doing better because they are attracting that foreign capital, while countries like Venezuela are doing everything they possibly can to turn it away.
    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Not necessarily ... there are many different types of investment, for example would you consider Chinese state companies buying up Canadian private oil companies "capitalism?" Also I am NOT against investment, I am saying you should recieve investment from a position of strength, investment in Sweden is gonna be done in a way where Sweden Benefits a lot more than investment, say in the Congo, where the local economy has very little bargaining power.
    Congo hardly has an economy. They are 60% agriculture, and the rest is exportation of minerals. We aren't building factories there. Yet.
    But, Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole is growing at a rate of around 5% a year, despite tightening of global credit markets.

    And Paul Krugman would respectfully disagree with you "Workers in those shirt and sneaker factories are, inevitably, paid very little and expected to endure terrible working conditions. I say "inevitably" because their employers are not in business for their (or their workers') health; they pay as little as possible, and that minimum is determined by the other opportunities available to workers. And these are still extremely poor countries, where living on a garbage heap is attractive compared with the alternatives.
    And yet, wherever the new export industries have grown, there has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Partly this is because a growing industry must offer a somewhat higher wage than workers could get elsewhere in order to get them to move. More importantly, however, the growth of manufacturing--and of the penumbra of other jobs that the new export sector creates--has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise. Where the process has gone on long enough--say, in South Korea or Taiwan--average wages start to approach what an American teenager can earn at McDonald's. And eventually people are no longer eager to live on garbage dumps. "

    In Praise of Cheap Labor - Slate Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Venezuela is NOT south american socialism in a nutshell, the different leftists are doing much different things, you cannot compare Brazils model with equadors with venezuelas, just like people saying "the nordic model" is misleading since there isn't just one model.
    Can I at least get you to agree that they have the most socialist-driven model in the region?
    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    1. Compare that to American manufacturing .... ALL manufacturing is having difficulties, even in China, due to the crisis and instability of the US market. However Chavez's government HAS inproved SIGNIFICANTLY non oil manufacturing.

    owimage003.jpg
    owimage002-2.jpg

    So saying "oh they have problems" is easy, everyone has problems, but the fact is they are doing BETTER.
    But worse than Asia, for the fourth time. I wouldn't be surprised if China runs into a slowdown due to overleverage, but at the same time they can still grow at 8% a year for 18 years before they start to catch up to the U.S. in GDPPC. Besides, China isn't the only country in Asia. And actually in the case of Chavez, worse then the rest of South America.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    2. Its easy to point out isolated events and anti-Chavista's opinions, by 2008, self sufficiency was attained (for the first time) in corn, rice and pork, increasing production 132% for corn, 71-92% for corn, and 77% for pork since 1998 .... in 2010 there has been a 48% increase in lands under cultivation since 1998, and they are increasing production for other staples

    Agriculture in Venezuela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    3. Again ... compare BEFORE Chaves to AFTER chavez and we see the difference.

    owimage002-2.jpgowimage002-3.jpg
    owimage005.jpg
    You're graphs aren't even labeled so I don't know what I'm responding to. And they don't have a source. It looks like you made them yourself.

    Either way, you still didn't disprove my sources. I stated that Chavez nationalized the oil industry, and used that money for national investments. We agree there. I also said that Oil is funding all of Chavez's industry investments. Which it is. Then I logically inferred by juxtaposing that to how inefficiently the sectors that those investments (from oil) are being made in are being run, that we can conclude that the expansion in output is strictly due to an expansion in the total investment, i.e. more oil money, and not by the efficiency of those sectors itself.

    Back to Krugman "After all, global poverty is not something recently invented for the benefit of multinational corporations. Let's turn the clock back to the Third World as it was only two decades ago (and still is, in many countries). In those days developing countries like Indonesia or Bangladesh were still mainly what they had always been: exporters of raw materials, importers of manufactures. Inefficient manufacturing sectors served their domestic markets, sheltered behind import quotas, but generated few jobs. "

    The only difference being Chavez is admirably trying to use those raw material exports (oil) to reduce poverty and invest in their economy. Except, as with those countries, it is still "Inefficient manufacturing sectors serv[ing] their domestic markets, sheltered behind import quotas"

  8. #1528
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Yeah ... But they are still not for profit, and thus not 100% dependant on ever growing profits, of coarse you still want to maximise revenue within reason, but the difference is universities can internalize externalities and take into account social effects.
    Yes they are... The profits just go to something besides shareholders, IE new lab equipment, a new football stadium, new athletic facilities, etc.

    And take into account social effects? Give me a break, my tuition has gone up 15% every year. But I'm fine with that, because the value of my degree goes up with the prestige of the university.

    You keep stating how dependent capitalism is on ever growing profits yet for the last 250 years or so we have had.... ever growing profits. :O

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Oh ... Ok ... they lost a greater percentage of their own wealth, that doesn't suprise me at all, nor does it really change my point.



    2007-2008 ... Ok, but we'd have to include the post initial crisis years, also I personally don't buy the whole 1% thing, its more like .001%.
    Obviously, I'm not disputing that they problably are only down 4-5% now, where are the rest probably have budget less than that. But it still disproved your point.

    I don't like some of the .001% either by the way. I'm especially disdainful of individuals with "primitive accumulation," or enormous amounts of oil and tobacco money. If you are rich because you employ 500,000 people, fine, but if you are rich because you own oil lands and collect royalities.... that's problematic.

    I think I found a solution I really liked to this, but I'm still looking into it and its an entire different discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    I'm arguing that what stopped Capitalism from collapsing was ever growing state bailouts and saving.
    No.. because in the case of your "externalities" which I'm guessing is just a fancy way of saying over-leveraged growth, that would just compound the problem.

    And do you know the definition of collapse? If a building collapses.... do you know of any way of catching it midair and putting it back up straight? So you can't say capitalism collapsed in 2007, considering unemployment only peaked at around 10% and it probably would be below 7% right now if Greece wasn't freezing the credit markets.


    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Sure, but you have too see the type of investing China is allowing, its not by any means "free" infact is extremely controlled by the state, so really its a huge influx of capital, but still mostly under the control of the state.
    But the state isn't the source of it. That's my point. So they can regulate it to an extent, but at the same time if they were too autocratic about it, companies would think its too risky to invest there. But that's only China. Countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia etc. are not nearly that statist, and they are still seeing massive economic growth due to the investment.
    Point is, the country has to attract the foreign investment, it doesn't just appear like magic. Asia countries are doing better because they are attracting that foreign capital, while countries like Venezuela are doing everything they possibly can to turn it away.
    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Not necessarily ... there are many different types of investment, for example would you consider Chinese state companies buying up Canadian private oil companies "capitalism?" Also I am NOT against investment, I am saying you should recieve investment from a position of strength, investment in Sweden is gonna be done in a way where Sweden Benefits a lot more than investment, say in the Congo, where the local economy has very little bargaining power.
    Congo hardly has an economy. They are 60% agriculture, and the rest is exportation of minerals. We aren't building factories there. Yet.
    But, Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole is growing at a rate of around 5% a year, despite tightening of global credit markets.

    And Paul Krugman would respectfully disagree with you "Workers in those shirt and sneaker factories are, inevitably, paid very little and expected to endure terrible working conditions. I say "inevitably" because their employers are not in business for their (or their workers') health; they pay as little as possible, and that minimum is determined by the other opportunities available to workers. And these are still extremely poor countries, where living on a garbage heap is attractive compared with the alternatives.
    And yet, wherever the new export industries have grown, there has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Partly this is because a growing industry must offer a somewhat higher wage than workers could get elsewhere in order to get them to move. More importantly, however, the growth of manufacturing--and of the penumbra of other jobs that the new export sector creates--has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise. Where the process has gone on long enough--say, in South Korea or Taiwan--average wages start to approach what an American teenager can earn at McDonald's. And eventually people are no longer eager to live on garbage dumps. "

    In Praise of Cheap Labor - Slate Magazine

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Venezuela is NOT south american socialism in a nutshell, the different leftists are doing much different things, you cannot compare Brazils model with equadors with venezuelas, just like people saying "the nordic model" is misleading since there isn't just one model.
    Can I at least get you to agree that they have the most socialist-driven model in the region?
    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    1. Compare that to American manufacturing .... ALL manufacturing is having difficulties, even in China, due to the crisis and instability of the US market. However Chavez's government HAS inproved SIGNIFICANTLY non oil manufacturing.

    owimage003.jpg
    owimage002-2.jpg

    So saying "oh they have problems" is easy, everyone has problems, but the fact is they are doing BETTER.
    But worse than Asia, for the fourth time. I wouldn't be surprised if China runs into a slowdown due to overleverage, but at the same time they can still grow at 8% a year for 18 years before they start to catch up to the U.S. in GDPPC. Besides, China isn't the only country in Asia. And actually in the case of Chavez, worse then the rest of South America.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    2. Its easy to point out isolated events and anti-Chavista's opinions, by 2008, self sufficiency was attained (for the first time) in corn, rice and pork, increasing production 132% for corn, 71-92% for corn, and 77% for pork since 1998 .... in 2010 there has been a 48% increase in lands under cultivation since 1998, and they are increasing production for other staples

    Agriculture in Venezuela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    3. Again ... compare BEFORE Chaves to AFTER chavez and we see the difference.

    owimage002-2.jpgowimage002-3.jpg
    owimage005.jpg
    You're graphs aren't even labeled so I don't know what I'm responding to. And they don't have a source. It looks like you made them yourself.

    Either way, you still didn't disprove my sources. I stated that Chavez nationalized the oil industry, and used that money for national investments. We agree there. I also said that Oil is funding all of Chavez's industry investments. Which it is. Then I logically inferred by juxtaposing that to how inefficiently the sectors that those investments (from oil) are being made in are being run, that we can conclude that the expansion in output is strictly due to an expansion in the total investment, i.e. more oil money, and not by the efficiency of those sectors itself.

    Back to Krugman "After all, global poverty is not something recently invented for the benefit of multinational corporations. Let's turn the clock back to the Third World as it was only two decades ago (and still is, in many countries). In those days developing countries like Indonesia or Bangladesh were still mainly what they had always been: exporters of raw materials, importers of manufactures. Inefficient manufacturing sectors served their domestic markets, sheltered behind import quotas, but generated few jobs. "

    The only difference being Chavez is admirably trying to use those raw material exports (oil) to reduce poverty and invest in their economy. Except, as with those countries, it is still "Inefficient manufacturing sectors serv[ing] their domestic markets, sheltered behind import quotas"
    Last edited by ReformCollege; 12-11-12 at 08:15 AM.

  9. #1529
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    This was my source for the chart ... I'll respond to the rest later Investment and GDP Growth in Venezuela | venezuelanalysis.com

  10. #1530
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Walmart workers demand better wages

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Then just require pay checks automatically contribute to the accounts, and have the government subsidize low income worker's accounts. I'm okay with a mandate to save... not so much a mandate to buy a for profit companies' service.


    And like I said... our system wastes an enormous amount of money in the delivery of health care through insurance agencies.
    I think a single payer system takes care of that more efficiently. I'll certainly look at any analysis of both.

    But in our country, people will always be allowed to buy more insurance or more care.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •