|
Accretionist posted:It often takes a while to sink in. You've probably affected more people than you realize. Oh definitely, I myself used to be a petulant poo poo of a "pop-Libertarian" but transitioned to more sensible ideas after having a number of internet arguments where, being a petulant poo poo, I never conceded any points and argued with full fervor but let ideas sink in nonetheless. Some of those ideas made me question my own conclusions after the fact and I later read up on them and decided that oh hey my current ideas are kinda stupid. I think most people don't want to admit they're wrong to someone they're arguing with, but they'll seriously consider the arguments that make them question their own conclusions, at least in private. EDIT: New page! DarkHorse posted:Uhh, I have no idea how this guy expects the world to work. I've never seen someone be pro-free-market yet against corporations. I've seen people twist all of the failings of the free market to make them the government's fault for "interfering" or whatever, but how does he not like the idea of a corporation? Let's suppose we get rid of the idea of a corporation altogether, and every company is just a big group of people who are all held personally responsible for their actions. The upper level management tells the lower levels to do illegal things, the lower levels do thinking that if anything bad were to come of it the people ordering them to do things would be just as culpable as them, they are inevitably accused of doing illegal things, the upper level management just goes "we never said to do that" and, since they have better lawyers and are smart enough not to leave a trail, the lower levels all go to jail and the execs are still scott free. How is that any different at all? Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Aug 23, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I suppose I've moved around enough as a child that I don't have any friends I've known most of my life. Well, on some issues you can make some headway over time. However, the guy I've known since I was 9 who decided to keep posting racist as hell stuff I had to de-friend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
As well, a public forum like Facebook can necessarily influence other people who might otherwise be on the fence in terms of a certain debate, but who aren't interested/are afraid of posting their opinions about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Vermain posted:As well, a public forum like Facebook can necessarily influence other people who might otherwise be on the fence in terms of a certain debate, but who aren't interested/are afraid of posting their opinions about it. People generally don't like reading 40 comments on an article on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I suppose I've moved around enough as a child that I don't have any friends I've known most of my life. My problem is that my long-term friends (all from the Internet) are mostly Libertarians, and they're mostly that way because I convinced them of the glories of libertarianism and the free market years ago. So now that I'm an ex-libertarian, I'm... not having the same effect on them I used to. I've simply had to stop bringing up politics on Facebook. I'd rather have friends than victories. Parallel Paraplegic posted:I've never seen someone be pro-free-market yet against corporations. I've seen people twist all of the failings of the free market to make them the government's fault for "interfering" or whatever, but how does he not like the idea of a corporation? Let's suppose we get rid of the idea of a corporation altogether, and every company is just a big group of people who are all held personally responsible for their actions. The upper level management tells the lower levels to do illegal things, the lower levels do thinking that if anything bad were to come of it the people ordering them to do things would be just as culpable as them, they are inevitably accused of doing illegal things, the upper level management just goes "we never said to do that" and, since they have better lawyers and are smart enough not to leave a trail, the lower levels all go to jail and the execs are still scott free. How is that any different at all? It's actually very common with libertarians, especially hardcore ones. Corporations are a creation of the government, so libertarians say that without a government, you wouldn't have corporations. You'd still have companies, but none of the limited liability and fictional personhood that corporations have. I now see that this is generally a way to blame the evils of corporations on the government. "That corporation wouldn't have done X evil deed if it hadn't been allowed to by the government! Without corporations and their limited liability [insert corporate evil of the day here] wouldn't have happened! The government is the reason people do bad things! The libertarian explanation for what you suggested would be that the lower level people wouldn't commit illegal acts, even when ordered. Because people can make decisions like that that could cause them to be fired without any repercussions, of course. Golbez fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
PEOPLE don't exist!!! It was all just ATOMS interacting! etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 12:07
|
|
|
I think there's some merit to the idea of holding the leaders of banks and such accountable for the crap they pulled over the last few years, but getting rid of the legal fiction of corporations isn't the method I would pursue for that goal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Some douchebag posted:Yes, in a free market people can work together. But in a truly free market, they couldn't hide behind some "I didn't do that, the corporation did that!" bs. Uh, s/he does realize that one is always liable for their own torts and that the corporate shield doesn't protect individuals in the way he imagines is the case, right? quote:A human being built the car that had glue under the gas pedal. A human being designed it that way. A human being safety inspected it (alledgely) and a human being sold it. Those human beings should be held responsible for the results of their actions. Not hide behind some fictional "Entity" called a corporation. So he wants every individual to be joint and severally liable for unlimited liability so that, for example, a completely innocent partner in a General Partnership would be held liable for the actions of a partner that does dirty poo poo being his/her back (which actually happened quite a bit, particularly in the accounting, law and medical fields and ultimately led to the creation of the LLP and LLC as a result)? I mean, this guy is arguing that it's equitable to demand that individuals be able to mind control the other partners and not, you know, face the reality that it's a blockhead's dream. quote:The BP oil spill? That was a human who did that. A human being is resposible for that - NOT a "Corporation". Actually it's both the individuals and the corporate entity that were responsible for that (since the corporation is a legally distinct entity for tax and unlimited life purposes). quote:If there was a Free Market - along with Personal Responsibility (the other side of the "Yes, Mr. Obama, I really DID 'build that'." coin) - then you wouldn't need government interference. Standard laws that apply to any human being (don't kill, don't steal, don't harm, etc.) would still be around and enforcable. In fact, they'd be far more enforcable than they are today, because - as the law currently recognizes it - so much harm is done by "Corporations" who cannot be jailed, or killed, or punished in any way other than fines. But the individuals in the corporation can be (and sometimes are) held liable for their torts/crimes? Also, how exactly does the laws get enforced if there is no court system (given that the courts are part of a governmental system) or law enforcement mechanism? A Mad Max-style Thunderdome 'court'? I mean, it would literally have to be 'might makes right' since there would be no way to enforce any decrees against anyone that, for example, had the resources to fund a personal militia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Are there any good citations/studies showing that an increase in the minimum wage won't cause businesses to close, and/or that an increase would not increase prices or cause inflation to the point where a person would be right back where he started? Every time the topic gets brought up, the argument is that unemployment would go up from all the businesses closing down from being unable to afford the increased labor costs, and that people would either get poorer or stay the same because prices would rise to match or overtake the extra buck an hour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Are there any good citations/studies showing that an increase in the minimum wage won't cause businesses to close, and/or that an increase would not increase prices or cause inflation to the point where a person would be right back where he started? Generally what happens is some minor job loss right as it goes into effect, then nothing else other than people making more money. Here's a (admittedly biased) site full of quotes and charts you can use http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss There's links to a few studies on that site from more neutral parties if you want more serious things than talking points and factoids. Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Are there any good citations/studies showing that an increase in the minimum wage won't cause businesses to close, and/or that an increase would not increase prices or cause inflation to the point where a person would be right back where he started? Here's the thing. Those effects can happen if the minimum wage is set too high. A business would close if the minimum wage sets the marginal cost of labor above the value of the marginal product of labor. But, there is a 'correct' minimum wage that doesn't create these effects. In perfectly competitive labor markets with no distortions, the wage rate is set at the marginal productivity of labor. Any minimum wage above that marginal productivity will result in disemployment or neutral price increases. But labor markets are generally not perfectly competitive, and generally distorted at least a little bit. In any case where the labor market is less competitive on the demand side (The extreme case being a monopsony, a single buyer of labor), wages will be set below the marginal productivity of labor. A minimum wage that is set at the marginal productivity of labor in this case actually increase employment by moving up the labor supply curve. No business will close, because VMP of labor is not above the marginal cost. That's basically where we are. Labor markets aren't perfectly competitive, and the minimum wage is below the optimal level. We have some wiggle room where it can be raised with no negative effects. The optimal wage is estimated to be somewhere around $9.50 an hour, so anything above that there's a tradeoff between employment and higher wages. The distortion that labor markets have is the EITC. The effect is probably small, but I think it's worth mentioning. The EITC is a tax credit to low income workers. Workers should count the EITC as part of their labor income, and thus the equilibrium wage rate paid by employers will be set lower. Since MC is below VMP, a correctly set minimum wage will have no negative effects. As an aside, I'd like to talk about Bad Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage: redistribution and stimulus. These are both things we want more of, but the minimum wage is not apt at doing them. It is an ineffective tool for redistribution because beyond the level that corrects for market failures and distortions, you face a tradeoff between providing welfare for the low-income employed and low-income unemployed. Do you choose higher wages and disemployment or lower wages and higher employment? Neither, because we have much better policy tools for redistribution. On the other side of the redistribution equation, using the minimum wage as an alternative to the tax code is a poor idea, because what types of businesses employ low-cost labor is pretty arbitrary. Why should gas stations and retail establishments be the target while law firms and investment banks are exempt? The stimulus argument follows from a redistribution effect. The change in distribution of income from a minimum wage set higher than the optimal rate is likely slightly stimulative but only in the short run. You still face the negative effects and it doesn't outweigh them. Using the minimum wage wage as an alternative to fiscal policy is a bad idea because A: it should be set at the correct level already and thus raising it has costs and B: In a downturn fiscal policy is both more effective and less costly than normal. The paper that gets cited a lot is Card and Krueger, 1992. They studied the fast food industry in NJ and Pennsylvania, and determined that a minimum wage increase in New Jersey had no disemployment effects. edit: Hmmm, this seems neat at a glance. Pierat fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
I'm looking for more counter-examples to "some cultures are inferior/superior to others wrt. work ethic, and this does not really change." I am having an argument with people who -- while ardently proclaiming themselves as not racist -- assert that, eg., Africa/African-American culture encourages a poor work ethic and that, furthermore, this is some sort of immutable characteristic. I remember reading two examples in Bad Samaritans: that the Germans (~n the late 1800s) and the Japanese (before the 1920s) were considered to be lazy, and the general industrialization and advancement of these countries as they advanced changed that. Basically, I want to show that what these people are defining as "culture" is in fact a consequence of their particular circumstances (poverty, institutionalized discrimination, etc) rather than something inherent, and that if we changed their environment, their attitudes would change. I anticipate having some trouble, though, with the specific examples of South Africa and Zimbabwe. The South African transfer of power from the apartheid government to the ANC has really been followed by a descent into nepotism, corruption, and stagnant economic growth, with Zimbabwe following a similar, but much more extreme, path.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Pierat posted:Here's the thing. Those effects can happen if the minimum wage is set too high. A business would close if the minimum wage sets the marginal cost of labor above the value of the marginal product of labor. But, there is a 'correct' minimum wage that doesn't create these effects. This is a fantastic post that explains the dynamics, benefits and downsides of the minimum wage beautifully. I personally like the Australian system where the minimum wage is bargained separately for each industry by their representative union. All the benefits of the minimum wage without the distortive effect of making it one-size-fits-all. Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:00
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
computer parts posted:Yes, I guess predicting a recession 10 years after the last one in a system that has recessions every 10 years would be the easiest toxx in the world. Yes that's the joke. Thanks for paraphrasing? Pierat posted:I've yet to see a single source claiming a huge looming asset price bubble that has even minimal data to back it up. If there's as asset price bubble, it should be reflected in some asset pice. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/leveraged-debt-exceeds-2-trillion-in-repression-credit-markets.html quote:It took three decades for the amount of speculative-grade debt to reach $1 trillion. It took about seven years to reach $2 trillion as investors sought relief from the financial repression brought on by near-zero interest rates. Eh? Or would that fall under being the Fed's fault for ending QEXVII too early?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Are there any good primers on understanding political, sociological, and/or economic thought? How about more basic things, like logical debating and presenting an effective argument? There are lots of terms, labels, and people that I hear a lot about, but I don't really know anything about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
gaan kak posted:I'm looking for more counter-examples to "some cultures are inferior/superior to others wrt. work ethic, and this does not really change." I am having an argument with people who -- while ardently proclaiming themselves as not racist -- assert that, eg., Africa/African-American culture encourages a poor work ethic and that, furthermore, this is some sort of immutable characteristic. The burden of proof is on them, here. What elements of which culture do this? How are they certain that this is the fundamental cause and not a result of, say, colonialism? When it comes to people like that, I absolutely believe that applying the Socratic method is called for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
I'm not an anthropologist, I studied linguistics, but I'll try to tackle this using what i know about anthro. Anyone with better training than me, feel free to correct me.gaan kak posted:I'm looking for more counter-examples to "some cultures are inferior/superior to others wrt. work ethic quote:"and this does not really change." quote:I am having an argument with people who -- while ardently proclaiming themselves as not racist -- assert that, eg., Africa/African-American culture encourages a poor work ethic and that, furthermore, this is some sort of immutable characteristic. So if culture is immutable religious schisms would never happen, nations would not experience revolutions, language would not evolve, and no person would ever transition from one culture to another. Again though, they're confusing culture with race - or much more likely purposefully using "culture" as a creepy ok-to-say-in-public code word for "race" So yeah, you can go ahead and make judgments about other cultures for good or ill, that's part of the human condition. We all do it to some extent. It's easier to deal with an abstraction than with an individual, complicated human being. Yeah I think I just typed all that when I kind of feel like I should have said "legit racist trying not to seem that way," but now I typed it all so I'm not gonna delete it.  e: removed a lovely catchphrase. UltraShame fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Are there any good primers on understanding political, sociological, and/or economic thought? How about more basic things, like logical debating and presenting an effective argument? There are lots of terms, labels, and people that I hear a lot about, but I don't really know anything about them. There's a lot of good stuff in the D&D book thread for reading up on those schools of thought, as they're very broad and you can't really address them in a meaningful way in a single(or even several) primers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Giving the book thread a quick browse, I'd say you're better off starting with some philosophy. Google something like "social and political thought syllabus" for reading lists, and from there you can look for primers on different philosophers. Hobbes, Locke, and Kant are worth looking at for a clearer understanding of later philosophy but imo skippable. I recommend Bentham and John Stuart Mill for some utilitarian thought. John Rawls' A Theory of Justice pretty much is modern liberalism, and I highly recommend you read some excerpts from it and maybe some summaries or study guides too. Nozick wrote the libertarian response to it, and I think it's worth reading if only to see that it's a fairly inconsistent theory, and because even if it's flawed it's important to understand it. I also recommend Krugman's "The Return of Depression Economics." It explains some macro, international finance, and monetary policy in a very accessible way. You'll also come away with a good understanding of recent economic history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
I'm seeing this being posted a lot today about the the radiation from Japan. If anyone has any actual science either supporting/debunking this stuff it would be much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
BlueTesla posted:I'm seeing this being posted a lot today about the the radiation from Japan. If anyone has any actual science either supporting/debunking this stuff it would be much appreciated. quote:Let’s boil it down quickly: Scientists say the only safe level of radiation is zero.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
BlueTesla posted:I'm seeing this being posted a lot today about the the radiation from Japan. If anyone has any actual science either supporting/debunking this stuff it would be much appreciated. Let me try to break it down: EDIT: you know what, just click the link below, they do a much better job More on oceanic radiation and Fukushima, from a research institution rather than the big bad corporate media: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989 Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
quote:Let’s boil it down quickly: Scientists say the only safe level of radiation is zero. I can't speak to the rest of the article, but I cannot imagine a responsible scientist would say that. XKCD had a radiation comparison chart a while back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
BlueTesla posted:I'm seeing this being posted a lot today about the the radiation from Japan. If anyone has any actual science either supporting/debunking this stuff it would be much appreciated. I found these links:
Basically, there is measurable radiation in these fish that can be traced back to Fukushima, but those radiation levels are actually so low that they're less than the amount of radiation you get from eating a banana. The abstract of the scientific article says this in no uncertain terms: Fisher et al posted:To link the radioactivity to possible health impairments, we calculated doses, attributable to the Fukushima-derived and the naturally occurring radionuclides, to both the marine biota and human fish consumers. We showed that doses in all cases were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter 210Po and that Fukushima-derived doses were three to four orders of magnitude below 210Po-derived doses. The amount of radiation normally found in fish is greater than amount of radiation added by Fukushima. ---------------- Edit: Also, the link you provided titles this image "Radiation.jpg"  It is, in fact, a tsunami map taken from NOAA. That's why it's measured in centimeters, which would be a pretty stupid thing to measure radiation in. You'll notice all the morons calling it a radiation map can't actually be bothered to change that part. You can find the original image here by clicking "high resolution maximum amplitude plot" under "Modeling results" (and here's the direct link and a brief related video explanation). Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
Just adding a bit here.Uranium Phoenix posted:Basically, there is measurable radiation in these fish that can be traced back to Fukushima, but those radiation levels are actually so low that they're less than the amount of radiation you get from eating a banana. Moreover, the normal radiation in pacific blue fin tuna was 100 to 1000 times what was a result of Fukushima. They expected subsistence fisherman to have a total radiation exposure from eating those fish equivalent to what one normally receives from natural sources on earth over 12 hours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Is there anything I can read on how to be a better internet arguer? I'm in a Facebook group arguing about a local development and my tone seems to be putting a lot of people off (though they're also mostly crazy and don't listen to reason anyway). But I'd at least like to improve my tone. The link in the OP has been archived, could anyone pull that out and repost it, or link to something else of use?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
You guys are awesome, thanks. Not my area of study so I was a little lost. I knew most of it didn't pass the sniff test but I prefer sources to my feelings. Thanks again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Is there anything I can read on how to be a better internet arguer? I'm in a Facebook group arguing about a local development and my tone seems to be putting a lot of people off (though they're also mostly crazy and don't listen to reason anyway). But I'd at least like to improve my tone. The link in the OP has been archived, could anyone pull that out and repost it, or link to something else of use? http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_Mind If I were forced to suggest only one, I'd probably pick this one: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Be aware that the central figure involved in LessWrong, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is a typical internet libertarian proclaiming dogmatic beliefs in natural rights, the incompetence of governments and his own enlightened position above and beyond the left-right spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Not sure if i want to vent or ask for actual links to disprove this studity but i just had a 4 hour long argument where i found out a friend believes that: We're not living under capitalism and neoliberalism is actually fighting to fix the world's problems, current leaderships are simply confused and non-ideological. Syria and Jordan are Iranian puppets. The Greek civil war was supported by Tito to create a larger empire, the US didn't really support the right, they simply defended themselves. The Soviet Union was an empire while the USA wasn't because the USA was subtle in their subversion while the USSR was open. When i told him most western coups were quite blatant he said "then why didn't nothing happen against them?  "No nation has or had local capacity for action, for the Soviet Union and the US controlled every move. There's no reason to think local nations, like Yugoslavia, Egypt, North Korea or Chile acted without total control of one of the powers, they either acted on behalf of one of the sides or stopped acting when their favored side ordered them to stop. He also unironically defended that Saddam was useful up until 2001, even with the mass murders. When the US attacked Iraq, however, he fully supported said move because it meant the end of a brutal dictatorship. When i asked him how the hell could the nation that created Saddam's reign and helped maintain it be responsible for anything positive hapening in Iraq in the future he replied "See how nations have no determination ".He also threw out a lot of human nature arguments and how none of the above was because of imperialism but because of realpolitik. The invasion of Czechoslovakia, however, was imperialist for the USSR was an empire. I wasn't used to arguing with these kind of people for a long time. Every reply i gave was replied with "i don't agree" mostly and i don't know why i kept it on for so long. I guess i'll ask for some arguments against the Iranian control over the other countries and some links to reply to the "US subversion" BS? I don't know, i don't get how you people can handle arguing for so long 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Mans posted:I guess i'll ask for some arguments against the Iranian control over the other countries and some links to reply to the "US subversion" BS? I don't know, i don't get how you people can handle arguing for so long So the loving Korean and Vietnam wars weren't overt enough for this guy? EDIT: VV  VV
Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
They were defenses against Soviet imperialism, because the Soviet Union was the last empire. Oh and neo-conservatism is trotskym in nature. If i had a tire iron...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Has he never heard of the Non-Aligned Movement, or at least the Tito-Stalin Split?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
I've been looking for help for things to prove to my father that unions aren't in fact evil, cruel, or seek to steal your money while ruining the business you work for until it goes bankrupt. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
quote:The Soviet Union was an empire while the USA wasn't because the USA was subtle in their subversion while the USSR was open. When i told him most western coups were quite blatant he said "then why didn't nothing happen against them? " If the US controlled every move then how was it a subtle subversion of a country? Yugoslavia had plenty of independent relations with the West and the IMF, which actually led to it's split and downfall. Egypt was in the USSR sphere early on during the cold war but Nasser's break with the USSR and tepid alliance with the US, and peace with Israel, is well known history. North Korea was fairly independent due to Kim Il-sung's liquidation of both the pro Chinese and pro USSR faction of the Korean Worker's Party. The Vietnamese were fairly independent and the Vietnamese faction of Communists liberated Cambodia from the Chinese dominated Khmer. quote:I guess i'll ask for some arguments against the Iranian control over the other countries and some links to reply to the "US subversion" BS? I don't know, i don't get how you people can handle arguing for so long Iran doesn't control Jordan because Iran is run by Shia, Jordan by a Hashemite, and Syria by an Alawite. You probably should have recommended the guy read a book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I've been looking for help for things to prove to my father that unions aren't in fact evil, cruel, or seek to steal your money while ruining the business you work for until it goes bankrupt. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
The point sounds like more a structural thing, i.e. whether unions are somehow inherently corrupt to begin with. I'd be interested in general literature on unions as well for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is your goal to prove that at least one such union exists, that all unions aren't those things, or that an undeclared number of unions between one and all aren't those things? One such union shouldn't be a problem, and if he isn't willing to grant that there exists one just for the sake of conversation, he's probably not worth talking to. All unions is impossible and likely incorrect. The unknown number is tricky and probably not interesting. My father has told me in the past that one reason the American Car industry is failing so hard is because the unions demand too much money and the car manufacturers just cannot keep up the pay and build decent cars at the same time. He's not a stupid man, he's just been told this all his life, that unions hurt businesses to the point that joining one is a bit like trying to destroy the business. He's also got personal anecdotes about how the NHS in Canada sucks a fat one because this one time he talked with a Canadian and he TOTALLY said that at 65 or older you get gently caress all from the government and you're put so far back it'll never happen. Which I'm not sure about, but I'd really like to find something confirming/denying it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:My father has told me in the past that one reason the American Car industry is failing so hard is because the unions demand too much money and the car manufacturers just cannot keep up the pay and build decent cars at the same time. He's not a stupid man, he's just been told this all his life, that unions hurt businesses to the point that joining one is a bit like trying to destroy the business. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/09/nation/na-green-cars9 posted:But Detroit automakers long ignored signs that higher fuel prices would shift demand, said Walter McManus, an economist at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute and former sales forecaster for GM. McManus said he and other GM analysts tweaked projection models when they didn't believe their results. "We thought we were smarter than consumers," he said -- particularly in regard to fuel economy, the impact of which they minimized "in a way we would never [minimize] horsepower or cup holders." I should also note that it is definitely true that unions hurt businesses in that they demand higher wages, and thus reduce profits. This is the very reason for their existence, and it's a good thing. Healthcare is an entirely different thing, I'm sure Canada's system has good aspects and bad aspects, it's not really meaningful to inspect these things on their own, it really should be done in comparison to either other systems or hypothetical changes to the same system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
E-Tank posted:My father has told me in the past that one reason the American Car industry is failing so hard is because the unions demand too much money and the car manufacturers just cannot keep up the pay and build decent cars at the same time. He's not a stupid man, he's just been told this all his life, that unions hurt businesses to the point that joining one is a bit like trying to destroy the business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:51
|
|