Politics Discussion

[RavynousHunter]

Yes, I know.
But it annoys me when people forget that there are other averages too, not just the mean. MEAN AIN'T EVERYTHING YO!

But, SD was the only thing I could remember from my a-level maths classes... I didn't really pay attention in that. It was either I say that or differentiation, and that is obviously wrong

Mean is particularly problematic if your dataset is prone to outliers; in that case, using the median is a better way to describe the centre of the distribution. I'm lucky, I like math, lol.

 

[keybounce]

Hey, then I'm lucky also.

 

[keybounce]

Actually, if you knew anything about big businesses, this is a LAST resort.
Why would they produce less, when they don't know if there competitors are still producing more.

Let me give you another example, to try to get this conversation going again.

Starbucks, as an example I just found out about, closed a large number of badly performing stores. This is cutting down on production, this is cutting down on market presence, etc. But it worked -- by cutting down on production, they went from being a money loser to a money maker.

In your extreme example of two suppliers in a market that can only support one, neither wants to be the one that goes under. But in the normal case of a saturated market, reducing what you produce in areas that are not your strong suit, to focus on where you are strong, is normal and profitable.

 

[jordsta95]

Let me give you another example, to try to get this conversation going again.

Starbucks, as an example I just found out about, closed a large number of badly performing stores. This is cutting down on production, this is cutting down on market presence, etc. But it worked -- by cutting down on production, they went from being a money loser to a money maker.

In your extreme example of two suppliers in a market that can only support one, neither wants to be the one that goes under. But in the normal case of a saturated market, reducing what you produce in areas that are not your strong suit, to focus on where you are strong, is normal and profitable.

With starbucks though they are able to close down a large proportion of their stores. As they overcharge for everything, so dropping one store to spend less on that one store makes them more money.

You can tell I don't like Starbucks...
Honestly, I don't want to debate a point which you aren't creating a "viable" counter-argument for. What you have said makes no difference to what I said, as Starbucks doesn't control the coffee selling "sector", nor do they have a vast majority. They are one of many.
In my example it was something where all competitors were struggling, and with coffee, especially in America, that isn't a product that is likely to have issues being sold.

 

[Geckogamer]

I guess i offer my 2 cent on politics


First of all I myself am very left so i see things as lowering taxes and improving working conditions as a good thing.but i dont see right party's as bad.
because i am very left ivote on a party wich used to be a communist party (hence used). The politics in my country are so now and then a mesh as it somehow managed to let people vote 5 times in a 2 years bit despite this im very happy with the system wich goes as follows

A member of The 2nd chamber suggest a new law

The second chamber discuss about that law whether it should be implemented or it if it needs some change

Th second chamber votes for the law (150 people from different party's ar member of the second chamber how more votes your party have the nore seats you have)

If 76 people upvote then law goes to the first chamber
if less then 76 people upvote then it will be discussed more or it will be rejected

The first chamber takes a final look at the new law (the first chamber have 75 members chosen from a different election) but they can't chabge anything

When a majority upvotes the law it will be implemented in reality
If a majority don't upvote then it will be rejected

This was my 2 cent

send from a thing

 

[keybounce]

and because of the size of cheese industry, you need to have all the employees, and you don't lower their wages in fears of strikes/mass quittings. So you bargain for cheaper milk.

Alright. Another option is to negotiate with the workers' union (you have effectively implied that there is one), and negotiate a system where everyone is working fewer hours, but no one is unemployed or gets a wage cut.

This is not a made-up example -- this is what real unions have done. Protect jobs, by making each job less valuable -- but still valuing the workers' time.

But the upshot has to be this realization: Demand for a product does go down. You cannot make demand go high just by lowering price if it is something people don't want. Otherwise, all I would have to do is say "Free Dandelions! Help yourself", and the high demand would clear my yard.

 

[Pyure]

Otherwise, all I would have to do is say "Free Dandelions! Help yourself", and the high demand would clear my yard.

Hold on...free you say? What's the catch? Where's this yard of yours?


Unions would be such a better contributor to economies if they operated in a fair supply and demand environment and we could shake off the anti-scab sentiment.

If my union considers doing on strike, I should have to weigh the value we contribute versus the possibility of a fleet of people going in and stealing my job. If I'm a typewriter repair person and Local Typewriters 204 goes on strike and there's a million other unemployed typewriter repairpersons who want my job, I shouldn't be able to call them scabs if I piddle away my job like that.

 

[keybounce]

With starbucks though they are able to close down a large proportion of their stores. As they overcharge for everything, so dropping one store to spend less on that one store makes them more money.

You can tell I don't like Starbucks...

I don't not like starbucks.
I don't think that they are any more overpriced than anyone else in that market.

I think that whole market is an example of a bad pricing concept. The overhead of the stores, the training for the employees, the employees, etc., -- there is no way to get a product out at that low volume (about 3-5 minutes per order) without it being pricy. For anyone in that market.

I think the entire market is overpriced, and aimed at those people with vastly more money than time. It is nothing more than paying someone to prepare food for you. 50 cents worth of food, if you bought the stuff yourself, and 10+ minutes to prepare it yourself at home, or a few minutes at the store if the line is short enough (and a waste if the line is long).

And since it's all about a short line, that means that they _have_ to have at least one "surplus" person working. I've seen places that did not, had long lines, and actually saw people walk out because of the lines. If the lines are long, I'll spend the time at home.

Their product is not coffee. Their product is "saved time".

 

[Pyure]

Their product is not coffee. Their product is "saved time".

And arguably service and selection. When you buy coffee from a starbucks its a genuinely different experience than from a lower-class coffee shop.

I have no issues whatsoever with this; its a valid business model.

 

[keybounce]

Hold on...free you say? What's the catch? Where's this yard of yours?

California. Dandelions are in unlimited supply over here.

Unions would be such a better contributor to economies if they operated in a fair supply and demand environment and we could shake off the anti-scab sentiment.

Err ... Maybe we should have a conversation about unions?

I am used to employees treating workers as replaceable cogs, with no inherent value because there's always another one available. I am used to the only way that employee needs are taken into account by employers is when the employees stand up together, and general shoppers listen to accounts of bad employers by the complaining employees.

If my union considers doing on strike, I should have to weigh the value we contribute versus the possibility of a fleet of people going in and stealing my job. If I'm a typewriter repair person and Local Typewriters 204 goes on strike and there's a million other unemployed typewriter repairpersons who want my job, I shouldn't be able to call them scabs if I piddle away my job like that.

Hmm... So, if a company says "We can hire someone cheaper than you, drop your price or we go elsewhere for labor", then you feel that there's nothing wrong with that?

My thesis was that economic and political decisions were inseparable -- your economic views determined your political views. With that view, if there's a way to get cheaper, foreign workers to work for you, why not do so?

Lets get back to something that is probably unrelated. Remember that discussion about retirement savings and the death age? If you are from a country that has people living to 80-95 regularly, with the expectation that old people have retirement accounts to live on, are you going to be able to compete, labor-wise, with someone from a country where people typically die around 50-65, with no one saving for retirement because that country has a lower standard?

Importing foreign workers, or shipping work overseas to lower wages, is nothing more than a race to the bottom. It is saying that retirement funding can't happen until world-wide unemployment has dropped to where there is world-wide shortage of labor -- and the people of this country (whereever you are) have to compete against the cheapest labor in the rest of the world.

Now, who does that benefit?

If my union considers doing on strike, I should have to weigh the value we contribute versus the possibility of a fleet of people going in and stealing my job. If I'm a typewriter repair person and Local Typewriters 204 goes on strike and there's a million other unemployed typewriter repairpersons who want my job, I shouldn't be able to call them scabs if I piddle away my job like that.

Yes, if a market is over-supplied with providers, whether it is milk producers, coffee shops, or labor in a saturated market, then providers will have to lower prices, or leave the market; demand is less than supply. That's basic stuff.

Any negotiation where you cannot say "I leave the table" is not actually a negotiation. If an employer is offering a poor wage package, and the union cannot say "We leave the table, and go on strike", because the jobs will be lost to other would-be workers, is not actually a negotiation. There is nothing to offer / trade / discuss.

Massive opening of labor opportunity to massive amounts of people does not help those who are working -- it helps those who are employers, and those who are in the new hire section.

With that in mind, consider two cases:
1. A government that opens its labor to people in other countries. Hurts the citizens of that country, helps citizens of other countries, and businesses.
2. Hollywood's screen actors guild, which acts to restrict who can work in films -- at the expense of others in the country that would want to and cannot.

To me, the line is the country/citizens. Case #1 is bad, because it hurts citizens of this country, which is against the point of the government. Case #2, opening up film industry access helps citizens of this country, at the expense of a few lucky ones already in the guild.

That is the issue with unions / labor to me.

By the way, SAG can do this because it has the support of other unions. Summarizing to the point of error, the writers, actors, production crews (think lighting / set building / etc), all are in agreement that they all go on strike together. Since antagonizing one union is antagonizing everyone, no studio can break the unions until they are willing to re-hire every single worker from scratch.

And yet, there still are some non-union productions that happen occasionally.

 

[keybounce]

I'm having a little trouble with your english.

I guess i offer my 2 cent on politics


First of all I myself am very left so i see things as lowering taxes and improving working conditions as a good thing.but i dont see right party's as bad.
because i am very left ivote on a party wich used to be a communist party (hence used).

I'm not sure that you use "left" in the same way I use "left".

It sounds like you are saying you want lower taxes and better working conditions.

What do you mean by "better working conditions"?
How can you enforce them without the government taking steps to enforce that?
How can you pay for government actions without taxes?

I think you are asking for a government that protects your working conditions for no charge at all.

"Taxes" is nothing more than the cost of society, the cost of your government protections and services.

"Fee for service" is a horrible model for governments to operate under -- it means that the rich can afford to use the government, and the poor cannot. Since the government has the strength, and very few can afford to fight it, if you can "buy" the government, you can bully those who cannot.

Paying to get what you want from the enforcement people sounds more like a mafia setup to me.

The politics in my country are so now and then a mesh as it somehow managed to let people vote 5 times in a 2 years bit despite this im very happy with the system wich goes as follows

A member of The 2nd chamber suggest a new law

The second chamber discuss about that law whether it should be implemented or it if it needs some change

Th second chamber votes for the law (150 people from different party's ar member of the second chamber how more votes your party have the nore seats you have)

If 76 people upvote then law goes to the first chamber
if less then 76 people upvote then it will be discussed more or it will be rejected

The first chamber takes a final look at the new law (the first chamber have 75 members chosen from a different election) but they can't chabge anything

When a majority upvotes the law it will be implemented in reality
If a majority don't upvote then it will be rejected

This was my 2 cent

send from a thing

So ... representative group A debates and works on a bill, to try to come up with something good; and group B then says yes or no, but cannot alter it.

That's different than what we use here. It's not like a hidden group negotiates a major international trade agreement, and then tells congress "Vote yes or no, but make no changes". That would be ... "Totally Prohibited Procedure", or TPP

 

[Pyure]

Err ... Maybe we should have a conversation about unions?

Yes, maybe we should. Its political and economical and it amuses me to do so so I tossed it in

Your points are fairly good, they just need some expanded perspective.

I am used to employees treating workers as replaceable cogs, with no inherent value because there's always another one available. I am used to the only way that employee needs are taken into account by employers is when the employees stand up together, and general shoppers listen to accounts of bad employers by the complaining employees.

Yes, this is good.

Hmm... So, if a company says "We can hire someone cheaper than you, drop your price or we go elsewhere for labor", then you feel that there's nothing wrong with that?

Correct. There's nothing at all wrong with that. The workforce should adapt. Some people will suffer as a result because they cannot adapt. This is a superior alternative to creating artificial demand on the market.

With that view, if there's a way to get cheaper, foreign workers to work for you, why not do so?

Right. If you can get cheaper, foreign workers to work for you, you should do so. This is supply and demand; they're willing to work cheaper, similar to a business offering me a better deal on a TV. I should choose the option that works best for me.

Importing foreign workers, or shipping work overseas to lower wages, is nothing more than a race to the bottom. It is saying that retirement funding can't happen until world-wide unemployment has dropped to where there is world-wide shortage of labor -- and the people of this country (whereever you are) have to compete against the cheapest labor in the rest of the world.

If I choose to repair typewriters for a living and someone on the other end of the world wants to undercut me and can profitably do so, they should. Its a global market now; people can't afford to think of "this country" versus "that country". Our costs of living are monstrously high specifically because of this sort of artificial value inflation. I am competing against other people, period.

Now, who does that benefit?

Those who can adapt the best.

Any negotiation where you cannot say "I leave the table" is not actually a negotiation. If an employer is offering a poor wage package, and the union cannot say "We leave the table, and go on strike", because the jobs will be lost to other would-be workers, is not actually a negotiation. There is nothing to offer / trade / discuss.

Employer: We don't want to give you raises.
Union: If you do that we walk
Employer: If you do that we give your jobs away to someone else
Union: If you do that, you need to re-train personnel, your employment reliability is less appealing to future hiring prospects, and frankly they're going to drive up their wages soon anyway.
Employer: { Weighs pros and cons and makes a decision }

Right now, there can be billions of a given profession, and they don't weigh into the equation. That's considerably less of a negotiation.

Massive opening of labor opportunity to massive amounts of people does not help those who are working -- it helps those who are employers, and those who are in the new hire section.

Going on the assumption that there are enough resources to go around world-wide (to a fair degree you can boil this down to we make enough food in the world to feed every person in the world-- and we do) it helps everyone who can fairly compete and adapt. This image of millions of starving typewriter repair people is misleading and silly. If they're forced to rethink their profession then most of them will. Some won't. Some people are less equipped to succeed in society than others.

PS: Everybody is an employer. My manager employs me to develop software. I employ farms to develop food, and grocery stores to develop a convenient means of accessing it.

1. A government that opens its labor to people in other countries. Hurts the citizens of that country, helps citizens of other countries, and businesses.

In the short-term where people refuse to adapt, this can hurt the citizens of that country. Sucks to be that country. Smarten up and you'll be fine.

2. Hollywood's screen actors guild, which acts to restrict who can work in films -- at the expense of others in the country that would want to and cannot.

I think I agree here?

To me, the line is the country/citizens. Case #1 is bad, because it hurts citizens of this country, which is against the point of the government. Case #2, opening up film industry access helps citizens of this country, at the expense of a few lucky ones already in the guild.

That is the issue with unions / labor to me.

Every time I see a bumper sticker telling me to buy domestic, I die a little inside. You want me to buy your cars? Compete against Korea/Japan/China. Don't pay your button-pushers $30/hr: They're not worth that. Develop a superior product. Offer a better guarantee on your work. Do something that truly increases the value of your product, because I refuse to artificially inflate it for your benefit and my loss.

 

[trajing]

That's different than what we use here. It's not like a hidden group negotiates a major international trade agreement, and then tells congress "Vote yes or no, but make no changes". That would be ... "Totally Prohibited Procedure", or TPP

Because I'm actually attempting to keep up to date on what's happening with the TPP, good job on that joke.

 

[TomeWyrm]

@Pyure The problem is that we don't have a truly global market. We just have easier access to other people's markets. There are travel and transport time and costs to take into account, and taking jobs overseas hurts the local economy. Which means the locals get less money, which means they buy less, which means you sell less, which means they make less, which means they buy less... which is a descending spiral feedback loop. It also bolsters the producer-countries economy but because they produce, they're not buying your products, so from your perspective the money leaves the market because it will almost certainly never return. The free market is what we've been trying and either it doesn't work, or humans can't make it work because lack of basic controls/regulation can be pointed to as major issues in all sorts of areas. For instance pepper at the beginning of the industrial revolution; to drive prices down they secretly added coal dust and pencil shavings to the pepper. Ketchup/catsup used to have red paint added for volume. Those same controls and regulations don't exist in southeast Asia or the Middle East, they also don't treat their workers like people, and sneak around regulations whenever they can in a bid to make more money at the expense of basically every step of the chain and even the planet. THAT is why shipping jobs overseas is a bad thing. If everyone was acting in a fair manner? I'd be all for a free market. Unfortunately, you can't trust humans (in aggregate) to not abuse a situation, which means we can't let the market control itself. Which sucks.

Also we don't actually make enough food to support the Earth's human population, at least not sustainably, and especially not at the rate our population is growing.

 

[trajing]

On the topic of free market: Free market != Unregulated market. A good reddit post (well, technically comment) is here.

 

[Pyure]

@Pyure The problem is that we don't have a truly global market. We just have easier access to other people's markets. There are travel and transport time and costs to take into account, and taking jobs overseas hurts the local economy. Which means the locals get less money, which means they buy less, which means you sell less, which means they make less, which means they buy less... which is a descending spiral feedback loop. It also bolsters the producer-countries economy but because they produce, they're not buying your products, so from your perspective the money leaves the market because it will almost certainly never return. The free market is what we've been trying and either it doesn't work, or humans can't make it work because lack of basic controls/regulation can be pointed to as major issues in all sorts of areas. For instance pepper at the beginning of the industrial revolution; to drive prices down they secretly added coal dust and pencil shavings to the pepper. Ketchup/catsup used to have red paint added for volume. Those same controls and regulations don't exist in southeast Asia or the Middle East, they also don't treat their workers like people, and sneak around regulations whenever they can in a bid to make more money at the expense of basically every step of the chain and even the planet. THAT is why shipping jobs overseas is a bad thing. If everyone was acting in a fair manner? I'd be all for a free market. Unfortunately, you can't trust humans (in aggregate) to not abuse a situation, which means we can't let the market control itself. Which sucks.

Also we don't actually make enough food to support the Earth's human population, at least not sustainably, and especially not at the rate our population is growing.

That's the definition of a global market. The individual parts don't need to be self-sufficient, they just need to interact to a considerable degree, and they do.

Your producer-countries scenario doesn't make sense because they DO buy those products.

And since we can't remove the evil human element from the free market, there's no sense trusting any other market. The human element is going to screw it up anyway.

Can you provide me a citation on the sufficient-food thing? My understanding is that we produce way more food than we need, however fatter western countries (like my own) eat and throw away absurd quantities of it.

 

[psp]

That's the definition of a global market. The individual parts don't need to be self-sufficient, they just need to interact to a considerable degree, and they do.

Your producer-countries scenario doesn't make sense because they DO buy those products.

And since we can't remove the evil human element from the free market, there's no sense trusting any other market. The human element is going to screw it up anyway.

Can you provide me a citation on the sufficient-food thing? My understanding is that we produce way more food than we need, however fatter western countries (like my own) eat and throw away absurd quantities of it.

If people were more open to genetic and biological engineering we could, perhaps, be able to produce enough food for everyone. Then again, the same concept applies to everything.
Which is one of the reasons why I get so frusterated at the amount of money wasted, spent of welfare programs, and defence.

 

[keybounce]

Just a very quickie: Producing enough food to feed the world is a far, far cry from:
a: Paying farmers sufficient for all that food,
b: Transporting the food to everyone that needs it.

Right now, a lot of food gets wasted because no one is willing to pay the farmers for it, and then pay to have it shipped where people are hungry.

Very quickie #2: Regulation is not bad. Regulation is nothing more than laws that apply to businesses. A regulated market is nothing more than saying that there are laws applying to businesses that want to buy and sell stuff.

Now, there can be bad regulations, just as there can be bad laws. But to say that you want unregulated markets is no different than saying that you want no laws, and people can lie, cheat, steal, and kill, if it is done in the name of a corporate business.

 

[psp]

This is what the U.S budget could look like in 2015.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

I can't even begin to rant on this.

I know that education is a state and local responsibility, but seriously.
They're only spending 72 billion on education. Out of trillions.

Actually, forget that. I would prefer that less is spent on education if the only things that come out of it are these pieces of shit.
http://www.corestandards.org/


Thankfully the state I live in hasn't yet adopted this curriculum. I know people who live in other states with these standards. They spent over 20, 20, days on standardized testing. It's just dumb.



If the government cut mandatory spending by 20%, they would not need to borrow a cent. Yes, I understand that this would leave so many, so called, necessary programs, underfunded. So be it.
Now, military spending, 640 billion isn't that unreasonable. Nevertheless, just think of the infrastructure that could be built with 140 billion out of that money.
How about another super computer to compete with china's Tianhe-2.
Why not more money invested in NASA?
NASA got 0.5% of the national budget in 2014 or about, get ready, this is scary, 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. Now I realized that 17 billion is nothing to sneeze about, but just think! We could do so much in space. The United States could remain the world superpower for the next 100 years or so, if we can get working, functioning, orbital infrastructure in the next 10-15 years.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_Budget_Estimates.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
It's just disgusting. We were on the moon 46 years ago. We are still on the moon today. Utterly depressing.


Eh, I can go on and on, going off on every tangent that occurs to me. Gah, we could be the beginnings of a new age, another expeditious age, the space age. If only we invested in better education, ect, ect, ect.

This is for the United States though, and some it could be inaccurate.

This was playing when I was typing this, kinda affected the tone and mood of the writing.

 

[TomeWyrm]

That's the definition of a global market. The individual parts don't need to be self-sufficient, they just need to interact to a considerable degree, and they do.

Your producer-countries scenario doesn't make sense because they DO buy those products.

And since we can't remove the evil human element from the free market, there's no sense trusting any other market. The human element is going to screw it up anyway.

Can you provide me a citation on the sufficient-food thing? My understanding is that we produce way more food than we need, however fatter western countries (like my own) eat and throw away absurd quantities of it.

The problem is that it's a bunch of disparate markets, not a unified global one. People are much more likely to spend money close to home, and unless you're exporting your goods close to their home, if you buy THEIR product, then revenue is sunk into THEIR local economy. Which is why the US is having so many economic problems right now, the USA offloaded basically all production/manufacturing jobs to China (and a few other places, but mostly China). Which means that all the money is flowing to China, which means there's less money coming into the USA, which means US citizens have less money to spend, which quickly leads to less spending. That's why buying local is so advertized. That's why the advice during recessions/depressions is to spend. Because the only way to have a healthy economy is to have money flowing, and if the money leaves the system, the system dies. Right now with the way corporations are pushing for prices at the cost of sustainability? The money is BLEEDING out of the US into other countries. Which is unsustainable. Which is the point of all the advice to buy local. Because if more people did that, your job would almost certainly get more money, which means you would have better job security and likely get more money to spend; the only people that lose out when you try to buy local when reasonable are the other markets that almost certainly won't be sending money back your way.

That's what my "producer-countries scenario" was saying. You spend money on chinese goods. That money goes to China. When does that money ever come back to your neck of the woods? China is making everything, what could they possibly want from another country? Raw materials? Ok, yay... unfortunately they're a MANUFACTURING country, which means the raw materials (quite by necessity) must cost less than the products going out. So China gains money. Unless you're Chinese, China gaining money doesn't help you in much of any way unless you don't buy Chinese products, and instead only provide them with the raw materials.

Also the lack of regulation in China is why Chinese goods have toxins in/on them. Lead-containing paints, unsafe plastics, heavy metals, pesticides. Not to mention that they're positively wrecking the environment thanks to a lack of environmental regulations, AND they treat their workers not much better than slaves. That's why I buy local. Because I know the money will come back to me in some form, and I know (or can find out) the conditions in which the things I'm buying were made.