3 ms·

I don't know what to think, myself. On the one hand, people are not rational, and they will not act rationally when their life is on the line. See: Negotiating

I don't know what to think, myself. On the one hand, people are not rational, and they will not act rationally when their life is on the line. See: Negotiating for health care, what EA does to everyone working for them, your example, ect ect. On the other hand, better that they make no money at all?

mempko 13y ago
You fall into the market trap. That is, that only through the market the solution lies. The reality is your time may be better spent disrupting the system that requires money to survive. In the mean time, support charities that don't expect anything else in return..
flyinRyan 13y ago
Or better yet, strengthen unions again so we can do something about the fact that the discrepancy between median worker pay and executive pay is probably larger than it was in fucking feudal times.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  So, better that unions have a few people that make lots of money? Unions help ensure job security, you're covering your own hide here. People in poverty don't have their foot in the door, and increasing the expense of a hire decreases the desire of a company to take the risk. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of CEO pay, but it's not relevant. How does that thinking go? Take the money CEO's are making and give it to the impoverished? And what shall they do for that money? Pump gas? There arn't enough gas stations, there's not enough menial labor, and there's more than enough machines. As cruel as it sounds, are workers not a commodity? Is their rarity of skills not a prize with a price tag? What do you say to the companies looking for people in very high supply? You have to buy at high prices? response: "OK, Then never mind" I don't know what the solution is, but what is there to do that is worth the money right now?
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    One of the problems we seem to have is that there is still belief in the "trickle down" effect; the idea that if we give rich people shedloads of money, it'll eventually end up in the hands of much poorer people. Part of the problem with this is the perennial problem that rich people, compared with ordinary people, don't spend their money. Presumably that's part of how they became rich; by holding onto money. From personal experience, I've had months in which my own pile of money makes more money than my full-time job. I expect if you're rich enough that this can happen every month, the temptation to not spend it becomes immense. One of the benefits of unions is, as you suggest, getting a decent wage. This wage comes out of the company, and one way to do it is reducing the ridiculous CEO salary and other such big salaries at the top. So now we have a lot of ordinary people with money. What do ordinary people do with money? They spend it. This is exactly what we want to happen. They go out and they create demand for consumer goods and services. In effect, they create jobs. A thousand ordinary people spending all their money creates a lot more demand than one rich person dumping it into an offshore tax haven. Sometimes you hear the rich describing themselves as job creators; they're wealth sinks. Money comes to them, and stops (or at least radically slows down). What creates jobs is demand for goods and services, and the ability to pay for it; unions ensuring decent wages directly create this effect. As cruel as it sounds, are workers not a commodity? This, to me, is something of a moral issue; I accept that you can take a strict economic view of people just as one part of the economic machine, and the point of all creation is to create and run an economic machine. I take a different view; that this idea is repugnant and grotesque.
    - GhotiFish 13y ago
      One more time then: Your solution is to give your wealth class more money, and have it trickle down, because this time it will actually work? Paint me a disgusting inhuman monster all you want. I am not swayed by this position. For rather obvious reasons.
      - EliRivers 13y ago
        Your solution is to give your wealth class more money, and have it trickle down No. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. Here's a quick refresher that might make it clear that you've completely misunderstood. I said: One of the problems we seem to have is that there is still belief in the "trickle down" effect problems; I clearly indicated that this is a BAD idea that DOESN'T work. I said a number of other things along these lines. Essentially, what I said is the exact opposite of what you seem to think I said. I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but you've got completely, absolutely the reverse understanding of what I said. You could not have missed the point more.

mempko 13y ago

You fall into the market trap. That is, that only through the market the solution lies. The reality is your time may be better spent disrupting the system that requires money to survive. In the mean time, support charities that don't expect anything else in return..

flyinRyan 13y ago

Or better yet, strengthen unions again so we can do something about the fact that the discrepancy between median worker pay and executive pay is probably larger than it was in fucking feudal times.

GhotiFish 13y ago
So, better that unions have a few people that make lots of money? Unions help ensure job security, you're covering your own hide here. People in poverty don't have their foot in the door, and increasing the expense of a hire decreases the desire of a company to take the risk. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of CEO pay, but it's not relevant. How does that thinking go? Take the money CEO's are making and give it to the impoverished? And what shall they do for that money? Pump gas? There arn't enough gas stations, there's not enough menial labor, and there's more than enough machines. As cruel as it sounds, are workers not a commodity? Is their rarity of skills not a prize with a price tag? What do you say to the companies looking for people in very high supply? You have to buy at high prices? response: "OK, Then never mind" I don't know what the solution is, but what is there to do that is worth the money right now?
- EliRivers 13y ago
  One of the problems we seem to have is that there is still belief in the "trickle down" effect; the idea that if we give rich people shedloads of money, it'll eventually end up in the hands of much poorer people. Part of the problem with this is the perennial problem that rich people, compared with ordinary people, don't spend their money. Presumably that's part of how they became rich; by holding onto money. From personal experience, I've had months in which my own pile of money makes more money than my full-time job. I expect if you're rich enough that this can happen every month, the temptation to not spend it becomes immense. One of the benefits of unions is, as you suggest, getting a decent wage. This wage comes out of the company, and one way to do it is reducing the ridiculous CEO salary and other such big salaries at the top. So now we have a lot of ordinary people with money. What do ordinary people do with money? They spend it. This is exactly what we want to happen. They go out and they create demand for consumer goods and services. In effect, they create jobs. A thousand ordinary people spending all their money creates a lot more demand than one rich person dumping it into an offshore tax haven. Sometimes you hear the rich describing themselves as job creators; they're wealth sinks. Money comes to them, and stops (or at least radically slows down). What creates jobs is demand for goods and services, and the ability to pay for it; unions ensuring decent wages directly create this effect. As cruel as it sounds, are workers not a commodity? This, to me, is something of a moral issue; I accept that you can take a strict economic view of people just as one part of the economic machine, and the point of all creation is to create and run an economic machine. I take a different view; that this idea is repugnant and grotesque.
  - GhotiFish 13y ago
    One more time then: Your solution is to give your wealth class more money, and have it trickle down, because this time it will actually work? Paint me a disgusting inhuman monster all you want. I am not swayed by this position. For rather obvious reasons.
    - EliRivers 13y ago
      Your solution is to give your wealth class more money, and have it trickle down No. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. Here's a quick refresher that might make it clear that you've completely misunderstood. I said: One of the problems we seem to have is that there is still belief in the "trickle down" effect problems; I clearly indicated that this is a BAD idea that DOESN'T work. I said a number of other things along these lines. Essentially, what I said is the exact opposite of what you seem to think I said. I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but you've got completely, absolutely the reverse understanding of what I said. You could not have missed the point more.