3 ms·

By "frivolity", I mean spending which is not necessary to provide satisfactory service. Bringing up slavery is a bit confusing. Why not just bring up Hitler? I

By "frivolity", I mean spending which is not necessary to provide satisfactory service. Bringing up slavery is a bit confusing. Why not just bring up Hitler? I understand that you want to keep collecting your paycheck while the next guy on the totem pole makes $12,000/year as a PTL. Similarly, the Donald wants to build a giant wall of ice guarded by rapers, bastards, criminals and political exhiles to prevent unskilled white men from losing their rents (while keeping the Mexicans in poverty). I guess that in my morality, rent seekers are evil and Trump is a bad person for appealing to them. You seem to disagree.

yequalsx 10y ago
I don't know what PTL is. In my system adjuncts (there are no postdocs) are paid pro-rata wages. That is, on a per credit basis, they are paid the same as me. They also get pro-rata insurance and retirement benefits. I'm sure there are qualified people who would do my job for less. And there will likely be qualified people who would do the job less than my replacement. Eventually we can find a local minimum. Great. We saved a buck or two. There are costs (non-financial) to society for creating a system in which the race to the bottom is the norm. I do not wish to live in a such a society. If conditions are bad enough you'll find someone willing to work for less. But this incentivizes creating a situation in which times are tough for most people. I do not wish to live in such a society. Considering my salary to be frivolous because a local min on my wage has not been achieved is not in line with how most people use the term as it relates to wages. I didn't bring up Hitler because it wasn't relevant. Slavery is given your apparent view that anything greater than the local min for wages is a frivolous expenditure. It does not require much thought to see that the pursuit of the local min for wages can, and does, lead to slavery in some cases.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  When I was in academia (or perhaps just at the universities I attended) PTL referred to "part time lecturer" - it's the same as adjunct, I think. I'm sure there are qualified people who would do my job for less...Eventually we can find a local minimum. Great. We saved a buck or two. More students can now attend college (since costs are lower) and those that do have less debt. But I guess that's less important than keeping the rents flowing to yourself. Trump 2016! Yeaaah! Don't want no Mexicans to take our jorbs! But this incentivizes creating a situation in which times are tough for most people. This is exactly the situation we have in the software industry. What does "times are tough" mean to you? People with six figure salaries and indoor jobs forced to endure the indignities of a 20 minute standup? ...the pursuit of the local min for wages can, and does, lead to slavery in some cases. By "slavery", do you refer to the normal definition (namely people involuntarily working under threat of violence)? Or do you have some less common definition?
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    The rent is not flowing to myself. Universal education is the way to go. My dad fought in WW2. He got to go to college for free (mostly free) because of the GI Bill. Younger siblings didn't. They were poor. He ended up much better off than the younger siblings. It's called the greatest generation but the only reason I can see for th8s is because they had the greatest opportunities presented to them. His professors weren't rent seekers and they got paid better than me. See it's possible to live in a system in which people make a reasonable wage without being rent seekers or others getting screwed. I'm using rent seeker in the pejorative sense that term denotes in colloquial speech. It's not a zero sum game. Society was better for the GI Bill. Even those who didn't directly use it. My uncles, while not being as well off as my dad, were better off overall. They got out of poverty as the economy got better. We had a system in which college didn't put people in penury, didn't keep rents flowing to teachers, and was an overall benefit to dociety. I grew up in Panama. During Noriega times were tough. People did things for far less than they normally would have. After all, the value of a glass of water to someone dying of thirst is far greater than it is to me in my present condition. There's a point where the race to the bottom becomes dehumanizing. There's more than maximizing/minimizing dollars. I feel sorry for people who can't see that. I've never met you personally but from posts I've seen of yours you appear to be a libertarian with a reverence to market forces. In a world of 7 billion people I think most libertarian ideas don't scale well. I used slavery in the normal sense of the word. Think hard enough and you'll see that man in desperation can volunteer to be indentured but when the situation isn't so bleak he will try to leave. Of course his desire to increase his wages may lead to a violent response from the employer. Especially if the practice has become normative.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Of course rent is flowing to you. You are capturing $rent = $your_salary - $market_salary. On many past occasions I've also captured rents; I've captured wages that are higher than they would be absent Trumpian forces that protected me from economic competition by folks born outside the US. Perhaps you think that rent is good, but that's a different statement. I'm sure that most Trump supporters also feel they deserve rents at the expense of Mexicans/those who might otherwise employ Mexicans. I'm not sure what "colloquial speech" you refer to or what you mean by "pejorative sense". As far as I know "rent seeker" is a technical term used primarily by economists to refer to people who take actions to seek/preserve their rent. If you feel it's pejorative, that's only because on some level you recognize that harming others for personal gain is not a good thing.
blfr 10y ago
while keeping the Mexicans in poverty How would an American wall keep Mexicans in poverty? Mexicans are free to create wealth themselves or by trading with the entire remaining world. They could even still sell to the US or work for US companies, just without moving there. If Trump was going to cordon Mexico off, there would be something to that argument. But they have access to two oceans.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Very simple: the Wall prevents some Mexicans from working for willing employers who would pay them a wage above the poverty level. I'm not claiming that Mexico is a middle income country solely because of US immigration restrictions - far from it. Pointing out their trade opportunities would be a valid counterpoint to that claim. I think most of Mexico's economic problems are entirely self inflicted (same as for the US, Venezuela, or most other countries).
  - blfr 10y ago
    The Wall doesn't even prevent Mexicans from working for a US employer. Any willing employer can invest in Mexico. And if Mexico's economic problems are self-inflicted then it makes perfect sense not to invite people who inflict such problems.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      From what I can tell, the vast majority of harms that Mexicans inflict is done at the ballot box rather than the workplace. Note that I never advocated allowing Mexicans to vote; on the contrary, I'd like to disenfranchise bad American voters rather than enfranchising bad Mexican ones.
      - blfr 10y ago
        Among many ideas for improving democracy, disenfranchisement is probably the one most often tried and history clearly shows that it's unmaintainable. Sooner or later it always gives in and nearly everyone gets to vote. In modern US it will be sooner. There's simply no realistic path where people move into a large, modern European* country and remain second class residents with limited influence over the government. This state won't last a single generation. * USA included by heritage if not by geography

yequalsx 10y ago

I don't know what PTL is. In my system adjuncts (there are no postdocs) are paid pro-rata wages. That is, on a per credit basis, they are paid the same as me. They also get pro-rata insurance and retirement benefits. I'm sure there are qualified people who would do my job for less. And there will likely be qualified people who would do the job less than my replacement. Eventually we can find a local minimum. Great. We saved a buck or two. There are costs (non-financial) to society for creating a system in which the race to the bottom is the norm. I do not wish to live in a such a society. If conditions are bad enough you'll find someone willing to work for less. But this incentivizes creating a situation in which times are tough for most people. I do not wish to live in such a society. Considering my salary to be frivolous because a local min on my wage has not been achieved is not in line with how most people use the term as it relates to wages. I didn't bring up Hitler because it wasn't relevant. Slavery is given your apparent view that anything greater than the local min for wages is a frivolous expenditure. It does not require much thought to see that the pursuit of the local min for wages can, and does, lead to slavery in some cases.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
When I was in academia (or perhaps just at the universities I attended) PTL referred to "part time lecturer" - it's the same as adjunct, I think. I'm sure there are qualified people who would do my job for less...Eventually we can find a local minimum. Great. We saved a buck or two. More students can now attend college (since costs are lower) and those that do have less debt. But I guess that's less important than keeping the rents flowing to yourself. Trump 2016! Yeaaah! Don't want no Mexicans to take our jorbs! But this incentivizes creating a situation in which times are tough for most people. This is exactly the situation we have in the software industry. What does "times are tough" mean to you? People with six figure salaries and indoor jobs forced to endure the indignities of a 20 minute standup? ...the pursuit of the local min for wages can, and does, lead to slavery in some cases. By "slavery", do you refer to the normal definition (namely people involuntarily working under threat of violence)? Or do you have some less common definition?
- yequalsx 10y ago
  The rent is not flowing to myself. Universal education is the way to go. My dad fought in WW2. He got to go to college for free (mostly free) because of the GI Bill. Younger siblings didn't. They were poor. He ended up much better off than the younger siblings. It's called the greatest generation but the only reason I can see for th8s is because they had the greatest opportunities presented to them. His professors weren't rent seekers and they got paid better than me. See it's possible to live in a system in which people make a reasonable wage without being rent seekers or others getting screwed. I'm using rent seeker in the pejorative sense that term denotes in colloquial speech. It's not a zero sum game. Society was better for the GI Bill. Even those who didn't directly use it. My uncles, while not being as well off as my dad, were better off overall. They got out of poverty as the economy got better. We had a system in which college didn't put people in penury, didn't keep rents flowing to teachers, and was an overall benefit to dociety. I grew up in Panama. During Noriega times were tough. People did things for far less than they normally would have. After all, the value of a glass of water to someone dying of thirst is far greater than it is to me in my present condition. There's a point where the race to the bottom becomes dehumanizing. There's more than maximizing/minimizing dollars. I feel sorry for people who can't see that. I've never met you personally but from posts I've seen of yours you appear to be a libertarian with a reverence to market forces. In a world of 7 billion people I think most libertarian ideas don't scale well. I used slavery in the normal sense of the word. Think hard enough and you'll see that man in desperation can volunteer to be indentured but when the situation isn't so bleak he will try to leave. Of course his desire to increase his wages may lead to a violent response from the employer. Especially if the practice has become normative.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Of course rent is flowing to you. You are capturing $rent = $your_salary - $market_salary. On many past occasions I've also captured rents; I've captured wages that are higher than they would be absent Trumpian forces that protected me from economic competition by folks born outside the US. Perhaps you think that rent is good, but that's a different statement. I'm sure that most Trump supporters also feel they deserve rents at the expense of Mexicans/those who might otherwise employ Mexicans. I'm not sure what "colloquial speech" you refer to or what you mean by "pejorative sense". As far as I know "rent seeker" is a technical term used primarily by economists to refer to people who take actions to seek/preserve their rent. If you feel it's pejorative, that's only because on some level you recognize that harming others for personal gain is not a good thing.

blfr 10y ago

while keeping the Mexicans in poverty How would an American wall keep Mexicans in poverty? Mexicans are free to create wealth themselves or by trading with the entire remaining world. They could even still sell to the US or work for US companies, just without moving there. If Trump was going to cordon Mexico off, there would be something to that argument. But they have access to two oceans.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Very simple: the Wall prevents some Mexicans from working for willing employers who would pay them a wage above the poverty level. I'm not claiming that Mexico is a middle income country solely because of US immigration restrictions - far from it. Pointing out their trade opportunities would be a valid counterpoint to that claim. I think most of Mexico's economic problems are entirely self inflicted (same as for the US, Venezuela, or most other countries).
- blfr 10y ago
  The Wall doesn't even prevent Mexicans from working for a US employer. Any willing employer can invest in Mexico. And if Mexico's economic problems are self-inflicted then it makes perfect sense not to invite people who inflict such problems.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    From what I can tell, the vast majority of harms that Mexicans inflict is done at the ballot box rather than the workplace. Note that I never advocated allowing Mexicans to vote; on the contrary, I'd like to disenfranchise bad American voters rather than enfranchising bad Mexican ones.
    - blfr 10y ago
      Among many ideas for improving democracy, disenfranchisement is probably the one most often tried and history clearly shows that it's unmaintainable. Sooner or later it always gives in and nearly everyone gets to vote. In modern US it will be sooner. There's simply no realistic path where people move into a large, modern European* country and remain second class residents with limited influence over the government. This state won't last a single generation. * USA included by heritage if not by geography