6 ms·

People don't want to face the facts, that we have to make up for lost productivity. nobody wants to be productive, because of the new wave of entitlement. thi

People don't want to face the facts, that we have to make up for lost productivity. nobody wants to be productive, because of the new wave of entitlement. this is both objectively and subjectively true. everyone wants the checks, nobody wants to run at 130% capacity afterwards to help pay those checks off. this point is refuted by the "da globalist cabal stole the productivity", but the math shows otherwise. the pandemic created debts that the average person must repay.

jnkxhrcixh 5y ago
This is correct. "Savings" are things that are produced but not consumed. During "lockdown", consumption exceeded production. That means, globally, years of savings were consumed. When savings are reduced, prosperity is reduced. Savings will have to be rebuilt to return to prosperity.
Jerrrry 5y ago
- chucksta 5y ago
  Maybe you got a reddit response because its a reddit style post. Highly opinionated, with no support, meme references, and elitism.
  - Jerrrry 5y ago
    maybe because this site is now inundated with low-quality shit-tier discussions, with the only discourse being ones that align with the silent, liberal, lurker majority. dissent can easily be hidden with a single click, instead of refuted with logic and facts. my "opinionated" start was a statement on the work culture, which is either true, or false, regardless of the individual posters intonation. downvoting dissent and dismissing it as "elitist memes" further proves my point. lets have discourse. people are lazier now than two years ago, and expect more. disagree? explain, because from the face of it, regardless of how "condescending" it may appear of a stance, it is true, and has real ramifications on both the labor force, economy, and policies.
    - chucksta 5y ago
      I meant reddit style comment* previously > Add this to the list > Thats the point of ranking based on a certain criteria. Why would someone refute you with logic and facts if you present none > Yeah, statements are generally true or false.. > see point two > Baiting people to respond to you isn't constructive discourse, see point two > Still unsure how you arrived that your opinion is true? Where is the support? Past the fact that your posts are a prime example of a low-quality shit-tier discussion, that's pretty clear. I guess your resistance to supporting facts might be proof of an increase in laziness too, and you expect more from the other party to carry it
      - Jerrrry 5y ago
        I do, because I start the discussion, and make a remark that nobody wants do partake in any valid discussion that isn't perfectly aligned with current consensus, identify the means that people use to dismiss it (minimizing threads and the stupid fucking contrast shift of the text/background, ((@dang, that is unacceptable, figure something else out))) and proceed to have my point demonstrated repeatedly by people willfully only engaging in ad hominem at best. had I not remarked that, nobody would be bother enough to even engage in ad hominem. try it. I guess the people interested in (useful) discourse and the people actually knowledgeable enough to provide it have drifted so far that it is now not-apparent on any common, non-niche, generic news aggregation sites. Whether this is just due to the encroaching political polarization of all aspects of life, or due to the new duality of the modern psyche, would be a takeaway for the reader. everyone posting on the internet is crazy. lurkers decide which extreme gets shown, due to populist algorithms. and i am yelling into the fucking void, because some lazy twats disagreed with me - not contributing usefully to discussion, and collapsed the comment chain.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
ben_w 5y ago
I don’t know how normal people think, because I am not at all normal. I do know that one of the biggest single costs the average person faces is housing. And I know that housing can be built in large quantities in economies with a tenth the GDP/capita of the current G7 average. I don’t by into the narrative that capitalism is pure evil (or anything even remotely close to that), nevertheless I think that unless effort is made to avoid them, undesirable Nash Equilibria can form within it, and that is why we don’t collectively have 10-20 hour work weeks with the standard of life from 1970: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-hour-pennworldtable https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-ho...
- Jerrrry 5y ago
  >biggest single costs the average person faces is housing right, and because we do not have a fair market with price discover, and regulation has hindered progress, this has led to a basic living need to become a speculative asset, much to the loss of the average homebuyer. if you expect your home to grow in value, you cannot also expect your son or daughter to be able to afford it in the same way.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    It’s not (just) about regulation; even inside Germany, there’s a massive price difference between similar properties in different locations. But I certainly agree with you about the second point, it’s frustratingly hard to getting the relevant people to accept that allowing homes to become investments also makes them unaffordable.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Nope. Get the multibillionaires to repay all that stuff. Why would I want to be productive when the value of my local currency has inflated away to about 50% of it's 2019 value and the businesses I work with literally can't afford to raise my hourly rates?
- Jerrrry 5y ago
  Because the opposite is furthering hyperinflation. Do not raise your hourly rates, expect people to work harder. That is what productivity actually is, working harder for the same income.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Next thing you're gonna tell me is I've gotta pay to work.
    - Jerrrry 5y ago
      no, you have work to be paid though. :pikachu face:
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    If you build 10 things in 10 hours and then build 15 things in 15 hours, that's not "more productivity", that's working more. You need to build 15 things in 10 hours for more productivity, but if you do that you get the income of 15 things, which is more income which you can use to pay that $1200 debt you're talking about. Build 15 things in 10 hours and get paid the same, means the employer pockets the extra 5 things of income. People who don't want to prop up businesses with more work for the same income is not the same as people not wanting to work.
axiomsEnd 5y ago
Can you show data that shows how much productivity has fallen? Also, how productivity and wages change in last 30-40 years. From what I know, although wages in low and middle jobs stagnate, the productivity now is extremly high. Also, in which countries it's objectively and subjectively true?
- Jerrrry 5y ago
  Productivity has fallen, due to the pandemic. people not working, less productivity
gerbilly 5y ago
> People don't want to face the facts, that we have to make up for lost productivity. No. We don't. I am unmoved by your attempt at argument from authority.
- Jerrrry 5y ago
  Feel free to complain, starve, and rent forever. There was no argument from authority. This is Modern Monetary Theory in action. It is just the other side they didn't show you.
  - gerbilly 5y ago
    Pff. Productivity has never been higher and true wages are going down and you figure we owe you something? To whom shall we make out the check sir? Sounds like you're the one who's complaining. [Stopping here because the only thing I really owe you at this point would break the posting guidelines.]
    - Jerrrry 5y ago
      I'm not complaining: I am pointing out that productivity took a massive shit, and it must recover, and have a surplus, to pay off the gains lost from inflation, which was caused by the increase in monetary supply. True wages must go down for the surplus. If wages went up, productivity/gdp wouldn't increase, and we would make no progress on our nation deficit, and continue to see inflation. I am not complaining, just stating the inconvenient, economic, hard truths; shooting the messenger is the laziest (apt) way of dismissing the argument, which is all you are mentally prepared to do. you don't owe me anything, since you cannot combat my argument with logic; everyone owes everyone a productivity increase to make up for the free $1200 checks, and the printing of money. your entitlement is showing. my point, again, demonstrated within. complain to get free money, then complain the money isn't worth as much. you cant have both. all my points, QED, with your responses so far. anyone else wanna disprove anything I have stated? read up MMT. then come back with some facts. ill wait.
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jodrellblank 5y ago
> "nobody wants to be productive, this is objectively true" This is objectively false; many people want to be productive. Demonstrated by things like: people working for money, people changing jobs to get more money, people signing up for courses to learn new skills, people founding new companies. Let's see census.gov[1] big graph of new business applications: steady at 200k/month from 2005 through 2015, increased to 300k/month by 2020, then CLIMBED to 400-500k/month through 2020 and 2021 and into 2022. > "nobody wants to run at 130% capacity afterwards to help pay those checks off" The Bureau of Labor Statistics[2] (which, incidentally, reports productivity improvements in latter half of 2021) says "Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index of real output by an index of hours worked by all persons". Which rebukes your claim "That is what productivity actually is, working harder for the same income." More hours for more output is not an improvement in productivity. Nobody wants to make well-reasoned arguments when they can lazily sneer at other people being "entitled" and then think that makes their point for them. > "the pandemic created debts that the average person must repay." > "this point is refuted by the "da globalist cabal stole the productivity", but the math shows otherwise." Really? Because here in the UK we have a company that was founded for £100 and then awarded a £110,000,000 contract to supply PPE to the NHS. A Government which has since written off £9Bn of PPE spending after it delivered nothing useful, £2.6Bn of that delivered PPE that wasn't good enough quality, and we have a court ruling that the Government's allocation of money for PPE during the pandemic was unlawful[3], and "Tansparency International UK said its analysis indicated "apparent systemic biases in the award of PPE contracts that favoured those with political connections to the party of government"". "Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner called for an independent investigation to "get to the bottom of how £3.5bn of taxpayers' cash were handed out in crony contracts and ensure it can never happen again". Liberal Democrat health spokesperson Daisy Cooper described the ruling as a "damning judgement" and said: "Not only did the Conservatives give their mates privileged access to lucrative Covid contracts, they did it unlawfully."" Barrister, Law school Professor and Director of the GoodLaw Project Tweeted[4] "Fortunes large enough to sustain generations are being made by those lucky or well connected enough to win them" - "Test and Trace’s “staggering” £22bn annual cost has not been justified by any clear evidence of its impact on the Covid pandemic, parliament’s spending watchdog has declared.*" - [5] But nooooo, this is just "da globalist cabal stole it" which you switch to mocking "da" language because the entitled lazy plebs are dumber than you XD XD XD right? [1] https://www.census.gov/econ/bfs/index.html https://www.census.gov/econ/bfs/index.html [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/prod2_02032022.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/prod2_02032022.htm [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037 [4] https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1314114913850318848 https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1314114913850318848 [5] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/test-and-trace-treats-taxpayers-like-cash-machine-dido-harding_uk_6047b1eec5b6cf72d09264ad https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/test-and-trace-treats...

jnkxhrcixh 5y ago

This is correct. "Savings" are things that are produced but not consumed. During "lockdown", consumption exceeded production. That means, globally, years of savings were consumed. When savings are reduced, prosperity is reduced. Savings will have to be rebuilt to return to prosperity.

Jerrrry 5y ago

chucksta 5y ago
Maybe you got a reddit response because its a reddit style post. Highly opinionated, with no support, meme references, and elitism.
- Jerrrry 5y ago
  maybe because this site is now inundated with low-quality shit-tier discussions, with the only discourse being ones that align with the silent, liberal, lurker majority. dissent can easily be hidden with a single click, instead of refuted with logic and facts. my "opinionated" start was a statement on the work culture, which is either true, or false, regardless of the individual posters intonation. downvoting dissent and dismissing it as "elitist memes" further proves my point. lets have discourse. people are lazier now than two years ago, and expect more. disagree? explain, because from the face of it, regardless of how "condescending" it may appear of a stance, it is true, and has real ramifications on both the labor force, economy, and policies.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    I meant reddit style comment* previously > Add this to the list > Thats the point of ranking based on a certain criteria. Why would someone refute you with logic and facts if you present none > Yeah, statements are generally true or false.. > see point two > Baiting people to respond to you isn't constructive discourse, see point two > Still unsure how you arrived that your opinion is true? Where is the support? Past the fact that your posts are a prime example of a low-quality shit-tier discussion, that's pretty clear. I guess your resistance to supporting facts might be proof of an increase in laziness too, and you expect more from the other party to carry it
    - Jerrrry 5y ago
      I do, because I start the discussion, and make a remark that nobody wants do partake in any valid discussion that isn't perfectly aligned with current consensus, identify the means that people use to dismiss it (minimizing threads and the stupid fucking contrast shift of the text/background, ((@dang, that is unacceptable, figure something else out))) and proceed to have my point demonstrated repeatedly by people willfully only engaging in ad hominem at best. had I not remarked that, nobody would be bother enough to even engage in ad hominem. try it. I guess the people interested in (useful) discourse and the people actually knowledgeable enough to provide it have drifted so far that it is now not-apparent on any common, non-niche, generic news aggregation sites. Whether this is just due to the encroaching political polarization of all aspects of life, or due to the new duality of the modern psyche, would be a takeaway for the reader. everyone posting on the internet is crazy. lurkers decide which extreme gets shown, due to populist algorithms. and i am yelling into the fucking void, because some lazy twats disagreed with me - not contributing usefully to discussion, and collapsed the comment chain.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

ben_w 5y ago

I don’t know how normal people think, because I am not at all normal. I do know that one of the biggest single costs the average person faces is housing. And I know that housing can be built in large quantities in economies with a tenth the GDP/capita of the current G7 average. I don’t by into the narrative that capitalism is pure evil (or anything even remotely close to that), nevertheless I think that unless effort is made to avoid them, undesirable Nash Equilibria can form within it, and that is why we don’t collectively have 10-20 hour work weeks with the standard of life from 1970: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-hour-pennworldtable https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-ho...

Jerrrry 5y ago
>biggest single costs the average person faces is housing right, and because we do not have a fair market with price discover, and regulation has hindered progress, this has led to a basic living need to become a speculative asset, much to the loss of the average homebuyer. if you expect your home to grow in value, you cannot also expect your son or daughter to be able to afford it in the same way.
- ben_w 5y ago
  It’s not (just) about regulation; even inside Germany, there’s a massive price difference between similar properties in different locations. But I certainly agree with you about the second point, it’s frustratingly hard to getting the relevant people to accept that allowing homes to become investments also makes them unaffordable.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Nope. Get the multibillionaires to repay all that stuff. Why would I want to be productive when the value of my local currency has inflated away to about 50% of it's 2019 value and the businesses I work with literally can't afford to raise my hourly rates?

Jerrrry 5y ago
Because the opposite is furthering hyperinflation. Do not raise your hourly rates, expect people to work harder. That is what productivity actually is, working harder for the same income.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Next thing you're gonna tell me is I've gotta pay to work.
  - Jerrrry 5y ago
    no, you have work to be paid though. :pikachu face:
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  If you build 10 things in 10 hours and then build 15 things in 15 hours, that's not "more productivity", that's working more. You need to build 15 things in 10 hours for more productivity, but if you do that you get the income of 15 things, which is more income which you can use to pay that $1200 debt you're talking about. Build 15 things in 10 hours and get paid the same, means the employer pockets the extra 5 things of income. People who don't want to prop up businesses with more work for the same income is not the same as people not wanting to work.

axiomsEnd 5y ago

Can you show data that shows how much productivity has fallen? Also, how productivity and wages change in last 30-40 years. From what I know, although wages in low and middle jobs stagnate, the productivity now is extremly high. Also, in which countries it's objectively and subjectively true?

Jerrrry 5y ago
Productivity has fallen, due to the pandemic. people not working, less productivity

gerbilly 5y ago

> People don't want to face the facts, that we have to make up for lost productivity. No. We don't. I am unmoved by your attempt at argument from authority.

Jerrrry 5y ago
Feel free to complain, starve, and rent forever. There was no argument from authority. This is Modern Monetary Theory in action. It is just the other side they didn't show you.
- gerbilly 5y ago
  Pff. Productivity has never been higher and true wages are going down and you figure we owe you something? To whom shall we make out the check sir? Sounds like you're the one who's complaining. [Stopping here because the only thing I really owe you at this point would break the posting guidelines.]
  - Jerrrry 5y ago
    I'm not complaining: I am pointing out that productivity took a massive shit, and it must recover, and have a surplus, to pay off the gains lost from inflation, which was caused by the increase in monetary supply. True wages must go down for the surplus. If wages went up, productivity/gdp wouldn't increase, and we would make no progress on our nation deficit, and continue to see inflation. I am not complaining, just stating the inconvenient, economic, hard truths; shooting the messenger is the laziest (apt) way of dismissing the argument, which is all you are mentally prepared to do. you don't owe me anything, since you cannot combat my argument with logic; everyone owes everyone a productivity increase to make up for the free $1200 checks, and the printing of money. your entitlement is showing. my point, again, demonstrated within. complain to get free money, then complain the money isn't worth as much. you cant have both. all my points, QED, with your responses so far. anyone else wanna disprove anything I have stated? read up MMT. then come back with some facts. ill wait.
    - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jodrellblank 5y ago

> "nobody wants to be productive, this is objectively true" This is objectively false; many people want to be productive. Demonstrated by things like: people working for money, people changing jobs to get more money, people signing up for courses to learn new skills, people founding new companies. Let's see census.gov[1] big graph of new business applications: steady at 200k/month from 2005 through 2015, increased to 300k/month by 2020, then CLIMBED to 400-500k/month through 2020 and 2021 and into 2022. > "nobody wants to run at 130% capacity afterwards to help pay those checks off" The Bureau of Labor Statistics[2] (which, incidentally, reports productivity improvements in latter half of 2021) says "Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index of real output by an index of hours worked by all persons". Which rebukes your claim "That is what productivity actually is, working harder for the same income." More hours for more output is not an improvement in productivity. Nobody wants to make well-reasoned arguments when they can lazily sneer at other people being "entitled" and then think that makes their point for them. > "the pandemic created debts that the average person must repay." > "this point is refuted by the "da globalist cabal stole the productivity", but the math shows otherwise." Really? Because here in the UK we have a company that was founded for £100 and then awarded a £110,000,000 contract to supply PPE to the NHS. A Government which has since written off £9Bn of PPE spending after it delivered nothing useful, £2.6Bn of that delivered PPE that wasn't good enough quality, and we have a court ruling that the Government's allocation of money for PPE during the pandemic was unlawful[3], and "Tansparency International UK said its analysis indicated "apparent systemic biases in the award of PPE contracts that favoured those with political connections to the party of government"". "Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner called for an independent investigation to "get to the bottom of how £3.5bn of taxpayers' cash were handed out in crony contracts and ensure it can never happen again". Liberal Democrat health spokesperson Daisy Cooper described the ruling as a "damning judgement" and said: "Not only did the Conservatives give their mates privileged access to lucrative Covid contracts, they did it unlawfully."" Barrister, Law school Professor and Director of the GoodLaw Project Tweeted[4] "Fortunes large enough to sustain generations are being made by those lucky or well connected enough to win them" - "Test and Trace’s “staggering” £22bn annual cost has not been justified by any clear evidence of its impact on the Covid pandemic, parliament’s spending watchdog has declared.*" - [5] But nooooo, this is just "da globalist cabal stole it" which you switch to mocking "da" language because the entitled lazy plebs are dumber than you XD XD XD right? [1] https://www.census.gov/econ/bfs/index.html https://www.census.gov/econ/bfs/index.html [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/prod2_02032022.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/prod2_02032022.htm [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037 [4] https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1314114913850318848 https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1314114913850318848 [5] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/test-and-trace-treats-taxpayers-like-cash-machine-dido-harding_uk_6047b1eec5b6cf72d09264ad https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/test-and-trace-treats...