Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#1277 Jun 23 2015 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Yeah; there is a reason I'm not going into depth.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1278 Jun 23 2015 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bijou wrote:
If I'm following you "logic" properly, gabji, it would seem that you would advocate pay raises to, say, Wal-Mart employees commesurate with the increase in the value of the whole company.

No. I advocate pay for Wal-Mart employees based on the value of each individuals labor to the company. Why would you suggest otherwise?

If the value of the company goes up does that not indicate that the value of the employee's labor is worth more? (ie their efforts resulted in the increase in company value.)

It may. It may not. If the value of my company today is $100m and I have 1000 employees, and 5 years from now my company is worth $200m and I have 2000 employees, then the value of each individuals labor hasn't increased at all relative to the value of my company. I've expanded the company, but I've hired more employees along the way. The contribution of each one is unchanged.



Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bijou argument rested on the assumption that total value of a company can only increase in direct proportion to an increase the every individual employees labor contribution (thus requiring correlating increases in earnings commiserate to the increase in company value). One simple example shows that this is not true, thus his argument fails.
Want to quote the part of my post that says that? Y'know..the "only" and "direct proportion" parts? Getting super-tired of you putting words in other's mouths...mine in particular.


I didn't say that you said that literally. I said that your argument "rested on the assumption". Which it does. It's called logic. The only way your argument works is if we assume that the only way for a company's total value to increase is if the value of each employees labor to the company increased. That was your justification for why they should all get pay raises, right?
I'm saying that the value of the company increased due in part to the work of the employees and that they should gain a share of that value increase.

You added specific words with specific meanings one could not glean from the context of what I wrote. You added that to create a false argument to disclaim. You do that all the gorram time. It is the basis for most of your "logical" arguments.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1279 Jun 24 2015 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah; there is a reason I'm not going into depth.
What's the "harm" ?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1280 Jun 24 2015 at 4:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Quote:
anything more than subsistence is luxury that people have no right to obtain much less retain.

No, you have every right to obtain more, you just need to pay on it.


Great. But let's not pretend that we aren't harming the person we're making pay more. All I'm asking here.


The question is, and has always been "How much, and is it worth it?".


Absolutely. But it's hard to measure whether something is "worth it", if you're busy denying that there's a cost/harm in the first place (or at least actively downplaying it). The sheer number of times I've run into an argument of the form "Rich people don't need all that money, and it doesn't hurt them to tax it, so...." suggests that such decisions aren't really being made based on cost versus benefit. Rather, those who want more spending expend significant time and resources convincing people that there is no cost. Which should immediately raise red flags.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1281 Jun 24 2015 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm saying that the value of the company increased due in part to the work of the employees and that they should gain a share of that value increase.


What does "due in part to the work of the employees" mean though? That's very vague and broad, but your earlier statement was very clear that if Wal-Mart's company value increased then the employees should all get a raise "commesurate with the increase in the value of the whole company". Assuming you meant "commensurate", that means you were arguing that their pay should increase in direct proportion to the increase in value of the company. When I asked for clarification, you then said that if the value of the company goes up, that means that the value of the employees labor increased, and that their efforts resulted in the increased value of the company.

At the risk of repeating myself, that argument absolutely rests on the assumption that an increase in company value *must* have resulted from an increased value of the employees labor. You said it very clearly (well, in the form of a question, which is a BS way of backing into a position but whatever):

Bijou wrote:
If the value of the company goes up does that not indicate that the value of the employee's labor is worth more? (ie their efforts resulted in the increase in company value.)


If you weren't arguing this, then why claim that they should all deserve raises if the value of the company goes up? Their wages should be based on the value of their labor to the company. You can't assume that just because the value of the company increased, that the value of any given workers labor increased. But that's exactly what you are doing. Yet, when I point this out, you insist it's not. I'm confused about what you are arguing then.


Quote:
You added specific words with specific meanings one could not glean from the context of what I wrote. You added that to create a false argument to disclaim. You do that all the gorram time. It is the basis for most of your "logical" arguments.


I'm not adding anything. You said that all Wal-Mart employees should receive raises in pay relative to any increase in the total value of Wal-Mart. You supported this by saying that if Wal-Mart's value increased, it was because the employees labor was worth more. You were perfectly clear, but now you're denying it?

So you now agree with me that just because Wal-Mart's total value increases, it does not mean that the value of the employees labor has increased, and thus it does not mean that all Wal-Mart employees should get a raise? If so, then we're done. Yay!

Edited, Jun 24th 2015 3:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1282 Jun 24 2015 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
So you now agree with me that just because Wal-Mart's total value increases, it does not mean that the value of the employees labor has increased

Well, realizing you aren't at all capable of understanding this: It's a systemically valid approach to define the value of a corporation as the value of the labor of it's workers. This is, really, the fundamental way human beings perceive 'value'. "Value" of random objects that haven't been improved through labor is an arbitrary construct created primarily to allow easy power stratification and exploitation.

Please don't respond, I wasn't joking about you being literally incapable of understanding.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#1283 Jun 24 2015 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So you now agree with me that just because Wal-Mart's total value increases, it does not mean that the value of the employees labor has increased

Well, realizing you aren't at all capable of understanding this: It's a systemically valid approach to define the value of a corporation as the value of the labor of it's workers.


Sure. But the question is whether the value of each individual employees labor increased, or if said increase in company value is because the business has expanded and hired more workers, each one of which has the same dollar effect on the company's value as they had before? In the former case, the employees wages should increase proportionately, but in the latter, it should not.

Since Bijou was arguing that every employee should get a raise commensurate to the increase in total company value, his argument assumed that only the former case existed and ignored the possibility of the latter. I pointed out that the latter case disproves his assumption by providing a really simple example where his argument fails (company doubles the number of employees during the same time that its total value doubles). In that example, there is no reason for each individual employees wages to increase since each individual employees labor contribution to the value of the company has not increased.

As to the case of Wal-Mart, I think it's pretty safe to say that the total dollar valuation increase over time is primarily (if not entirely) the result of the type of expansion I spoke of and not that the same number of employees are just working so much better today than they were 20 years ago or something else silly. The shelf stockers, and door greeters, and register workers are no more competent today than they were in the past. So why should their wages increase relative to those past workers (other than inflation effects, I suppose)? They should not.

Is this really a thing that requires this much argument?

Quote:
This is, really, the fundamental way human beings perceive 'value'. "Value" of random objects that haven't been improved through labor is an arbitrary construct created primarily to allow easy power stratification and exploitation.


Yeah, great. Totally missing the point, but great.

You have 100 widgets. Each one is worth $100. The total value of your widget collection is $10,000, right? If we double the number of widgets, the total value of the collection also doubles to $20,000. Note however, that the value of each individual widget doesn't increase. Same deal with labor. Twice as many workers can (theoretically) generate twice as much profit for a company. But that doesn't mean that you pay each individual worker twice as much per hour of labor. Cause that would be stupid and not work mathematically at all.


Quote:
Please don't respond, I wasn't joking about you being literally incapable of understanding.


And yet, I can actually do math. Funny that.

Edited, Jun 24th 2015 7:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1284 Jun 24 2015 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
And yet, I can actually do math. Funny that.

And yet, you seem to think that a flat tax would hurt the person who pays more, even though he has more to pay. Funny, that.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1285 Jun 25 2015 at 5:29 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Sure. But the question is whether the value of each individual employees labor increased,

Nope, it's not. I didn't bother with the rest of your response, for reasons that I think I made fairly clear when I asked you not to respond.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#1286 Jun 25 2015 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You have 100 widgets. Each one is worth $100. The total value of your widget collection is $10,000, right? If we double the number of widgets, the total value of the collection also doubles to $20,000. [...] Twice as many workers can (theoretically) generate twice as much profit for a company.
In what theoretical world does increasing your overhead also increases your profit? 'cause that is stupid and doesn't work mathematically at all.

To simplify: (1x overhead) x 100p x $100 = $10,000 / (1x overhead) x 200p x $100 = $20,000 / (2x overhead) x 200p x $100 = $10,000

You might produce more units, but you're also spending more to produce each unit so you essentially broke even.
gbaji wrote:
And yet, I can actually do math.
Better get someone else to go over your checkbook.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1287 Jun 25 2015 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Administration wins on ACA. Subsidies are available through the federal exchanges.

Liberal wing, Kennedy and Roberts in favor. 6-3.

No more rulings today. SSM is probably tomorrow (or maybe Monday). Courts also ruled today that discrimination claims can be made under the Fair Housing Act even if the discriminatory effect was inadvertent. From SCotUSblog:
Quote:
The issue in this case is whether the Fair Housing Act allows lawsuits based on disparate impact – that is, an allegation that a law or practice has a discriminatory effect, even if it wasn’t based on a discriminatory purpose. The Court had granted review to consider this question in two earlier cases, but both of those cases settled before the Court could rule on them.



Edited, Jun 25th 2015 9:15am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1288 Jun 25 2015 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So you now agree with me that just because Wal-Mart's total value increases, it does not mean that the value of the employees labor has increased

Well, realizing you aren't at all capable of understanding this: It's a systemically valid approach to define the value of a corporation as the value of the labor of it's workers. This is, really, the fundamental way human beings perceive 'value'. "Value" of random objects that haven't been improved through labor is an arbitrary construct created primarily to allow easy power stratification and exploitation.

Please don't respond, I wasn't joking about you being literally incapable of understanding.


My concern with this approach is that it systematically misallocates capital resources. Whether or not that is worse than somewhat misallocating labor resources is somewhat debatable. There are solutions of course, but lots of those solutions have either poor efficiency or can't deal with growth inteligently.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1289 Jun 25 2015 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Scalia's dissent on the ACA case includes the precious surly line: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare" Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1290 Jun 25 2015 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Scalia is a petulant t-w-a-t.

FU, filter.

Edited, Jun 25th 2015 7:24am by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1291 Jun 25 2015 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
***
2,188 posts
So who was it that called it 6-3 again? Nice call.

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#1292 Jun 25 2015 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I think that was me, but on SSM. We'll see on Monday, hopefully.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1293 Jun 25 2015 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
According to the nutcase wing over at Free Republic, Obama is blackmailing Roberts because Roberts' children were smuggled into the country illegally.

I'm not even making this up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1294 Jun 25 2015 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I'm not giving that site any clicks, but it doesn't surprise me. When a Conservative learns and changes his opinion based on new information, other Conservatives panic. Opinions are constant and inviolate in the RWNJ world.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1295 Jun 25 2015 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Prediction: Court rules in favor of SSM, conservatives (not all, but at least some noteworthy ones) start talking about the need to limit SCotUS terms, gets at least as far as some GOP Congressman or another pitching an idea for a bill.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1296 Jun 25 2015 at 9:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Wow, Scalia really lost his mind on that dissent.

"Words no longer have meaning." Hey, you know, your role is interpretive. Maybe you're just not well-suited for your job?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1297 Jun 25 2015 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Maybe if we **** him off enough, he'll quit!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1298 Jun 25 2015 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, Fox News should be hiring since they finally ditched Palin.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1299 Jun 25 2015 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Huh. Do you suppose Palin wants to be a SC Justice?

Her dissents could be full of folksy wisdom and anecdotes.

Edited, Jun 25th 2015 10:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1300 Jun 25 2015 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Oh cripes, that made me snarf coffee.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1301 Jun 25 2015 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
"We should avoid allowing same sex marriage because I can see Russia from my porch and they allowed abortion to cause the droughts in California!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 273 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (273)