|
Does anyone have a collection of resources about why charter schools are not a solution to education problems, teachers unions aren't literally evil both in terms of taking public money and in terms of education quality, and replacing public education with vouchers will not fix anything? In case you hadn't guessed I accidentally got into an argument with someone who turned out to be a true believer who is interning for an up and coming tea party state politician and whose family consists of right wing businesspeople. Not to win this argument, which is impossible, but for my own education. Also is there a good overview of the budget problems in Wisconsin leading up to Walker's election, and the economic situation since then, or the budget surplus being built off a long term deficit? The more detailed the better. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Mar 6, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Does anyone have a collection of resources about why charter schools are not a solution to education problems, teachers unions aren't literally evil both in terms of taking public money and in terms of education quality, and replacing public education with vouchers will not fix anything? I remember this study coming up in the last education discussion thread that had to deal with charter schools. It's pretty damning generally: quote:SUMMARY OF FINDINGS There's a lot more nuance to the subject than that small tidbit though. Education is a complicated subject that "more choice = better" doesn't immediately solve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
A lot of the graphs in #2-4 in the OP don't seem to be there anymore?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Does anyone have that, plus the many, many missing images?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Does anyone have any good readings or articles on the effect of gentrification? I have a goof friend who argues that gentrification is overall good because it raises property prices for the folks already living there, who can then sell their home for a profit. I've argued that it destroys the culture that rose out of those communities when the folks that built those culture are pretty much forced out of the community, but his take was that most neighborhoods that get gentrified are full of people who need the money for food/etc. More than culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
I AM JAMES FRANCO posted:Does anyone have any good readings or articles on the effect of gentrification? You could point out that large numbers of people in the city are renters and hence wouldn't be able to sell their property. Gentrification is sort of good though if you're looking at the (financial) health of the city rather than the well being of the inhabitants within the city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
There's some research that says that "gentrification" (I put it in quotes because it's a loaded word with no definite meeting) actually benefits existing residents: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/11/09/number-of-the-week-the-benefits-of-gentrification/ And if we don't want to force people out, just build enough housing so the new people can come in without displacing anybody!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Are credit scores a useful metric for the effects of gentrification?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Don't forget about property taxes. When land values go up, taxes go up. If your home value grows but your income doesn't, you can literally be taxed out of your home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
This might be out of this threads scope, but does anyone have any information on how to organize a democratically run business? Maybe an organization with resources? I'm in Colorado if that helps.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:This might be out of this threads scope, but does anyone have any information on how to organize a democratically run business? Maybe an organization with resources? I'm in Colorado if that helps. There's a goon who runs a co-op software programming company with 100 employees who butts in whenever we're talking about co-ops to give us some first-hand experience, if I could remember who it was I'd say ask them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:This might be out of this threads scope, but does anyone have any information on how to organize a democratically run business? Maybe an organization with resources? I'm in Colorado if that helps. Couldn't you just organize it normally, but put important matters up to a vote of the employees? That would give you (presumably the founder) something akin to Queen's Assent, a check on democracy to be used never, but if poo poo really hits the fan it's there. I don't see why you need a special legal organization, or are you worried about your resolve to stick to your principles if the workers vote the wrong way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 16:18
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Couldn't you just organize it normally, but put important matters up to a vote of the employees? That would give you (presumably the founder) something akin to Queen's Assent, a check on democracy to be used never, but if poo poo really hits the fan it's there. I don't see why you need a special legal organization, or are you worried about your resolve to stick to your principles if the workers vote the wrong way? That's how it currently works, I would like some way to offer my employees/partners ownership in the company. Right now things are an LLC and my accountant wants to move to an S Corp which allows for me to split the shares and give them out, but I'd like to look at alternative business models (which I'm sure there are some orgs out there that help) or talk to someone with experience doing the same. I would like to create a structure in which everybody's well being is tied to the company and everyone feels like they are part owner. We've already agreed to a flat income and everybody is on board, it's just a matter of figuring out the right way to put it all in paper so that the worst case scenarios are all covered.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Ownership is tricky because it creates some legal responsibilities, particularly with an s-corp. There's a limit to the number of shareholders and requirements on citizenship and some other requirements. You can also get yourself in trouble with the IRS when you start calling payments that should be salary dividends and vice versa. It might be possible to use a two-tiered approach where the company (a standard subchapter s or c corp) is owned by a not-for-profit trust of some sort that operates for the benefit of the employees. We're now well beyond my expertise, but I'd be very interested to hear what you come up with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
I would look into a Worker's cooperative. I found some information about starting one here: http://institute.usworker.coop/tools/for-worker-coops/start-ups
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:That's how it currently works, I would like some way to offer my employees/partners ownership in the company. Right now things are an LLC and my accountant wants to move to an S Corp which allows for me to split the shares and give them out, but I'd like to look at alternative business models (which I'm sure there are some orgs out there that help) or talk to someone with experience doing the same. I would like to create a structure in which everybody's well being is tied to the company and everyone feels like they are part owner. We've already agreed to a flat income and everybody is on board, it's just a matter of figuring out the right way to put it all in paper so that the worst case scenarios are all covered. You should probably just use some informal "phantom equity" system that distributes profits among workers and legal ownership is held by one person. As other have mentioned, legal ownership is tricky, and you also have the practical problem that law firms and private investment banks have: how do new people afford to buy into your business? If your employees own the business, you can't give away their shares to a new employee, and if you fire somebody, you now have to cash them out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Does anyone have a link to an old article about the hog farming industry in North Carolina? It was incredibly disturbing and got posted on here a few years ago in one of those reading recommendations threads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Does anyone have a link to an old article about the hog farming industry in North Carolina? It was incredibly disturbing and got posted on here a few years ago in one of those reading recommendations threads. Sounds like this one: Boss Hog: The Dark Side of America's Top Pork Producer quote:...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Sounds like this one: Boss Hog: The Dark Side of America's Top Pork Producer YES! Thank you so much. I spent hours looking for it and I was right that it was rolling stone. I knew it was either there or New York Times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Anyone have anything comparing the longevity of conventional pollution (e.g. lakes of coal slurry) to that of nuclear waste?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
There's been 5k posts in the Eastern Europe thread since I last checked 2 weeks ago, what's happened? Russia finally invaded?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Anatharon posted:There's been 5k posts in the Eastern Europe thread since I last checked 2 weeks ago, what's happened? Russia finally invaded? Russia annexed Crimea and a whole bunch of other stuff is going down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Russia annexed Crimea and a whole bunch of other stuff is going down. Including the acknowledgement that Putin's aids listen to Tupac.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
As somebody living in a hotbed of FYGM retirees and tax avoiders, I'm constantly reminded of the benevolence of Small Business Job Creators and how they are the sole reason for society's continued existence. Does anybody have info/studies on the myths surrounding the actual effects of small businesses have on the economy? Google keeps spitting out propaganda at me and one Forbes editorial that "debunks" small businesses' importance without a shred of data or evidence. Bonus for anything that deals with "small business make up 50% of the U.S. economy" or how increasing the minimum wage will cause every small business to be destroyed overnight as the price of everything immediately inflates to make up the entire difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Small business making up 50% of the economy relies on some quite generous definitions of small business. The term sounds like it should be like old Uncle Joe's Shop with 5 employees, but depending on the specific industry/commercial area involved a "small business" can have up to $35.5 million in annual receipts and 1500 employees, and many sectors put the limit around $16 million annual receipts and 1000 employees. Additionally, many franchisees of large chains themselves count as small businesses, despite clearly being a part of an overall megabusiness and reliant on the chain's existence to run their own small enterprises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Small business making up 50% of the economy relies on some quite generous definitions of small business. The term sounds like it should be like old Uncle Joe's Shop with 5 employees, but depending on the specific industry/commercial area involved a "small business" can have up to $35.5 million in annual receipts and 1500 employees, and many sectors put the limit around $16 million annual receipts and 1000 employees. Yep, also based on this sheet of the ~28 million small businesses, 21 million of those are "non-employers" (or businesses that are solely run by the owner). Franchises make up about 9% of the rest, although I don't know if that would count stuff like car dealerships. e: Defining "small business" as "something that employs up to 500 people". e2: Based on their Most recent data it appears that the non-employers have gone up to about 22 million. computer parts fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Is there a good general-purpose response to the "If we screw over the rich, they'll screw us over harder" meme? I know of specific responses; raising the minimum wage wouldn't raise prices that much, and the cost of unpaid OT is currently paid by workers, which might work if you generalize it out to other externalized costs, but I don't know of a good one for "if we raise their taxes, they'll raise their prices". Possibly noting that only the 1% can get away with that kind of thing, which is unacceptable. I can't tell my boss that since he's paying me less, I'm going to work less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Is there a good general-purpose response to the "If we screw over the rich, they'll screw us over harder" meme? I know of specific responses; raising the minimum wage wouldn't raise prices that much, and the cost of unpaid OT is currently paid by workers, which might work if you generalize it out to other externalized costs, but I don't know of a good one for "if we raise their taxes, they'll raise their prices". Possibly noting that only the 1% can get away with that kind of thing, which is unacceptable. I can't tell my boss that since he's paying me less, I'm going to work less. They'll screw you over no matter what, because they don't have a choice in most cases*. If one competitor delivers lower prices through lower wages, and starts getting all of the new investment and expanding, other business must cut pay and benefits to stay in the game. If profitability falls, they'll try to save money by lobbying against social services and taxes. You can be nice to them, give them tax breaks and subsidies and long hours for low pay, and they'll still screw you over. So why not fight back and win some gains for yourself? Historically that's been the only successful response: where do you think weekends, sick days, and safety inspections came from? Not from the bosses. *waah my favourite niche wholesaler catering to a shrinking number of upper middle class people totally disproves this general rule OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Is there a good general-purpose response to the "If we screw over the rich, they'll screw us over harder" meme? I know of specific responses; raising the minimum wage wouldn't raise prices that much, and the cost of unpaid OT is currently paid by workers, which might work if you generalize it out to other externalized costs, but I don't know of a good one for "if we raise their taxes, they'll raise their prices". Possibly noting that only the 1% can get away with that kind of thing, which is unacceptable. I can't tell my boss that since he's paying me less, I'm going to work less. "Why weren't they doing it already?" That's even the formal-econ answer to why businesses won't change prices in response to a (lump-sum/profit) tax. They like money. If raising prices would get them more money, they'd have done it years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:"Why weren't they doing it already?" That's not strictly true, though. A business might raise prices to protect its cash flow in response to a tax increase even if that decreases its total revenue. Which it might not, because if every business in a market faces a similar cost increase there's less to be gained by taking the hit in the margins to gain market share and so less likelyhood that you'll lose business to competition by passing the cost along. It could be that your customers don't have the money to buy what they were buying and/or won't stand for it, but maybe they do/will. It depends on your market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
quote:If we screw over the rich, they'll screw us over harder" Sounds like appeasement. quote:if we raise their taxes, they'll raise their prices Any decent businessperson is going to set prices to maximize profits. Raising prices to "punish" the voters is a great way to have your competitors eat up your market share. Market equilibrium prices are influenced by a number of factors and tax rates are certainly one (especially taxes on consumers for goods with highly elastic demand). However, it's hard to imagine a bump in marginal tax rates on the shareholders of a company is going to have much impact, especially if we mean a bump in taxes on earned incomes since that wouldn't even change after-tax value of a dividend. If anything, luxury good manufacturers would have to lower their prices. quote:I can't tell my boss that since he's paying me less, I'm going to work less. Well you can, but this will likely end poorly for you for the same reason raising prices is going to end poorly for the business -- you'll just get undercut by the market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well you can, but this will likely end poorly for you for the same reason raising prices is going to end poorly for the business -- you'll just get undercut by the market. (Assuming perfect information for all other market actors)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
I've been engaging in a guilty pleasure and have been debating a libertarian on facebook. Right now he's saying that, if it weren't for government intervention and the meddling of powerful financial institutions, prices on all products across the board would be lower than they were 50 years ago as a result of technological improvements. Therefore the minimum wage doesn't need to be increased (and in fact should be abolished to allow companies to hire barely-employable people like the rural elderly as walmart greeters for 2 bucks an hour, but he's been arguing that to someone else and I haven't dipped into that thread yet) because the problem is that prices are higher than they should be. In a Truly Free Economy™, increased wealth through tech means that products can be made the same way at greater volumes for less money and companies compete with each other to keep prices low. I know that this is one of those basic microeconomic assumptions that don't actually hold up in the real world, but my brain is a bit fried right now and I can't seem to put the right terms into google to find supporting evidence against that argument. He uses the example of smartphones and computers, which I already plan to point out as a unique case when compared to goods as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
A libertarian upset over a corporation acting in it's own interest? Shocked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Libertarianism is a one trick pony of arguments 'government exclusively creates monopoly conditions which allows businesses to make excess profits and that's why everything isn't perfect right now'. All companies will try to increase prices to maximise their profits at all times and often succeed without government intervention, competition fails and monopolies exist without government action all the time. Technological development is a distraction from this because production isn't organised to encourage making everything cheap and available for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's not strictly true, though. A business might raise prices to protect its cash flow in response to a tax increase even if that decreases its total revenue. Which it might not, because if every business in a market faces a similar cost increase there's less to be gained by taking the hit in the margins to gain market share and so less likelyhood that you'll lose business to competition by passing the cost along. It could be that your customers don't have the money to buy what they were buying and/or won't stand for it, but maybe they do/will. It depends on your market. Can you walk me through this? I'm not sure I'm following. Are you sure you're looking at a tax on net-income rather than gross-receipts? As I'd see it, I could ask my accountant (or staff economist) to make me a spreadsheet of expected net-income for various prices. It seems like I'd just pick the price that gets me the best pre-tax revenue. Even if my take-home only ends up being 45% of that, I want to make sure I'm getting 45% of the biggest number possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:(Assuming perfect information for all other market actors) It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough. In this case, the information has to be good enough for the employer to know someone else will do the employee's job at a lower price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Zenzirouj posted:I've been engaging in a guilty pleasure and have been debating a libertarian on facebook. Right now he's saying that, if it weren't for government intervention and the meddling of powerful financial institutions, prices on all products across the board would be lower than they were 50 years ago as a result of technological improvements. Therefore the minimum wage doesn't need to be increased (and in fact should be abolished to allow companies to hire barely-employable people like the rural elderly as walmart greeters for 2 bucks an hour, but he's been arguing that to someone else and I haven't dipped into that thread yet) because the problem is that prices are higher than they should be. In a Truly Free Economy™, increased wealth through tech means that products can be made the same way at greater volumes for less money and companies compete with each other to keep prices low. Even in Libertarian land, the cost of some thing is the cost of the raw materials plus the cost of transforming them into the thing. As production technology advances, the cost of that transformation will likely go down. Consequently for intricately manufactured items that are made from cheap raw materials (like microprocessors that are basically sand and some aluminum) prices will likely decrease over time. However, if the raw materials are a limited resource (like steel or oil) that is consumed over time, the eventual decrease in supply will cause prices to increase due to standard market forces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Can you walk me through this? I'm not sure I'm following. Are you sure you're looking at a tax on net-income rather than gross-receipts? In practice the revenue-maximizing pricing strategy for your company is contingent on your competitors' pricing and what the market is willing to pay. So depending on your particular market, it could be the case that you could all make more money if only everyone raised prices together. That's not going to be universally true but it will be often enough. Now, coordinating is hard both because it's illegal and because your competitors are greedy bastards who can't be trusted. But a tax increase provides the perfect circumstance by raising costs for everyone. A tax on net income is still a cost because of the way it impacts your cash flow. A business pays estimated taxes monthly or quarterly and sets a certain amount of cash aside for that purpose. When that estimated tax bill goes up the provision for taxes must also go up and the result is that less cash is available to pay for other things. So if taxes on your net revenue go up, the practical effect is that your monthly costs go up as well. Does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Zenzirouj posted:I've been engaging in a guilty pleasure and have been debating a libertarian on facebook. Right now he's saying that, if it weren't for government intervention and the meddling of powerful financial institutions, prices on all products across the board would be lower than they were 50 years ago as a result of technological improvements. Therefore the minimum wage doesn't need to be increased (and in fact should be abolished to allow companies to hire barely-employable people like the rural elderly as walmart greeters for 2 bucks an hour, but he's been arguing that to someone else and I haven't dipped into that thread yet) because the problem is that prices are higher than they should be. In a Truly Free Economy™, increased wealth through tech means that products can be made the same way at greater volumes for less money and companies compete with each other to keep prices low. [citation needed] It's complete bullshit, but more importantly it's completely unfalsifiable. There's no way you will convince him it's not true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:11
|
|