Evil Rich People
-
KUTradition
- Contributor
- Posts: 13879
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am
Re: Evil Rich People
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
Re: Evil Rich People
walmart having to pay the 16 year old stockboy $18/hr may factor into the increased price of bread and milk.
Re: Evil Rich People
similar to how mcdonalds now having to pay the 17 year old drive thru jockey $18/hr may have something to do with the increased price of the big mac.
Re: Evil Rich People
Yeah, the metric is called "lift", as in, how much does a drop in price, separate from all other factors, lift sales.ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 2:56 pm are there metrics or other info about how far consumers go to save money on a product? particularly products like milk and eggs.
how much does the price of bread factor in compared to things like the location of the grocery store in proximity to the community, the prices or promotions of other items like steaks or laundry detergent or Apple Jacks?
are these consumer behaviors similar for durables or luxury items or services, as they are for things like groceries?
The answer to the second question is what I have been working on for about the last six months.
Not sure about the third.
Re: Evil Rich People
Let me help you understand the vast corporate conspiracy.
The largest sector of the US economy is services. It's a small sample, but here's an example. If you look at the Fortune data you can see profits decreasing for 2 years during the pandemic. Projects stopped and revenue dropped but we kept people on staff because it has been hard to find people for at least a decade and we believed that the demand for the projects was just delayed. We bet the house on it. During the pandemic we invested in equipment to make our people more efficient, and we didn't spend but a fraction of what we spent previously on travel and dinners with clients and such. And we got a surprise in that people were more efficient than we thought working from home. It was so good that we have people who are now mostly remote and so we don't need as much office space. So when the demand for services spiked and all of the delayed projects started back up in 2020, it was a great year. And after three years of not raising our hourly rates and increasing salaries by 10%, we raised our rates by 5%. And profits went from 15% to 30% (a 50% increase) in that year. I know it probably seems outrageous if you just looked at the numbers, but after a couple of tough anxious years, fuck anybody who begrudges us making some hay while the sun shines.
But yeah, after a couple of tough years, the Feds should definitely penalize anyone for above average profits if they got a good bounce back after a couple of years of below average profits.
The largest sector of the US economy is services. It's a small sample, but here's an example. If you look at the Fortune data you can see profits decreasing for 2 years during the pandemic. Projects stopped and revenue dropped but we kept people on staff because it has been hard to find people for at least a decade and we believed that the demand for the projects was just delayed. We bet the house on it. During the pandemic we invested in equipment to make our people more efficient, and we didn't spend but a fraction of what we spent previously on travel and dinners with clients and such. And we got a surprise in that people were more efficient than we thought working from home. It was so good that we have people who are now mostly remote and so we don't need as much office space. So when the demand for services spiked and all of the delayed projects started back up in 2020, it was a great year. And after three years of not raising our hourly rates and increasing salaries by 10%, we raised our rates by 5%. And profits went from 15% to 30% (a 50% increase) in that year. I know it probably seems outrageous if you just looked at the numbers, but after a couple of tough anxious years, fuck anybody who begrudges us making some hay while the sun shines.
But yeah, after a couple of tough years, the Feds should definitely penalize anyone for above average profits if they got a good bounce back after a couple of years of below average profits.
Nero is an angler in the lake of darkness
Re: Evil Rich People
How were standards of living for the common folk pre-Capitalism?
That thread is fucking stupid. False premises, straw men, shitty logic .. it's the approach that made me give up the war thread. The bullshitter has no good points so they throw as much bullshit out there as possible because nobody has the time or energy to go through it all point by bullshit point.
That thread is fucking stupid. False premises, straw men, shitty logic .. it's the approach that made me give up the war thread. The bullshitter has no good points so they throw as much bullshit out there as possible because nobody has the time or energy to go through it all point by bullshit point.
Re: Evil Rich People
sigh.
with as much as there is to unpack in that tweet thread, you'd hope a reader might have some reaction better than "bullshit bullshit bullshit," yet here we are again.
with as much as there is to unpack in that tweet thread, you'd hope a reader might have some reaction better than "bullshit bullshit bullshit," yet here we are again.
Re: Evil Rich People
His starting premise is entirely false, there has never been the 100% Capitalistic system that he is attacking, so everything after is invalid.
Also, he insinuates people are evil by nature, which if true, he would need to apply to systems other than Capitalism.
Also, again, how was life for the commoner before Capitalism?
Re: Evil Rich People
it's only invalid if you choose to make it invalid. You could ponder any or all of the angles here, or you can blanket dismiss it all on some technicality if you wish.
he does mention systems other than capitalism. It's pretty wild how folks will prize our political democracies, while simultaneously also somehow thinking that economic decision making is best left exclusively to some capitalist class.
as a whole, "life for the commoner" has mostly only historically improved when the commoner learns to stand up for himself. When the commoner's material conditions are left to some hierarchical superior -whether capitalist, feudal, or whatever - life for the commoner tends to suck.
he does mention systems other than capitalism. It's pretty wild how folks will prize our political democracies, while simultaneously also somehow thinking that economic decision making is best left exclusively to some capitalist class.
as a whole, "life for the commoner" has mostly only historically improved when the commoner learns to stand up for himself. When the commoner's material conditions are left to some hierarchical superior -whether capitalist, feudal, or whatever - life for the commoner tends to suck.
Re: Evil Rich People
if you go back throughout history and think of mans greatest inventions. you got:
capitalism
yoga pants
lesbian soft core porn
um
um
there you have it. the definitive list.
capitalism
yoga pants
lesbian soft core porn
um
um
there you have it. the definitive list.
Re: Evil Rich People
P1 - If an argument can't be made without using a false premise, it's not a good argument.ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 11:35 am it's only invalid if you choose to make it invalid. You could ponder any or all of the angles here, or you can blanket dismiss it all on some technicality if you wish.
he does mention systems other than capitalism. It's pretty wild how folks will prize our political democracies, while simultaneously also somehow thinking that economic decision making is best left exclusively to some capitalist class.
as a whole, "life for the commoner" has mostly only historically improved when the commoner learns to stand up for himself. When the commoner's material conditions are left to some hierarchical superior -whether capitalist, feudal, or whatever - life for the commoner tends to suck.
P2 - I would argue that of any known system, Capitalism gives more economic decision making to the people than any.
P3 - Agreed. But that's the thing, this entire attack he (and you) make on Capitalism assumes people are greedy and evil by nature, while the alternatives seem to assume the opposite. If you assume people are going to be greedy and power-hungry, Capitalism is the only system that can keep that in check at all. You can't make money if everyone is really pissed off at you. Unless you're breaking the rules, which goes back to paragraph 1 - there are rules, there is no such thing as pure Capitalism.
-
Deleted User 863
Re: Evil Rich People
In the words of the super intelligent Cascadia, "your audience isn't intelligent enough to comprehend this kind of thinking"Mjl wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 1:59 pmP1 - If an argument can't be made without using a false premise, it's not a good argument.ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 11:35 am it's only invalid if you choose to make it invalid. You could ponder any or all of the angles here, or you can blanket dismiss it all on some technicality if you wish.
he does mention systems other than capitalism. It's pretty wild how folks will prize our political democracies, while simultaneously also somehow thinking that economic decision making is best left exclusively to some capitalist class.
as a whole, "life for the commoner" has mostly only historically improved when the commoner learns to stand up for himself. When the commoner's material conditions are left to some hierarchical superior -whether capitalist, feudal, or whatever - life for the commoner tends to suck.
P2 - I would argue that of any known system, Capitalism gives more economic decision making to the people than any.
P3 - Agreed. But that's the thing, this entire attack he (and you) make on Capitalism assumes people are greedy and evil by nature, while the alternatives seem to assume the opposite. If you assume people are going to be greedy and power-hungry, Capitalism is the only system that can keep that in check at all. You can't make money if everyone is really pissed off at you. Unless you're breaking the rules, which goes back to paragraph 1 - there are rules, there is no such thing as pure Capitalism.
Re: Evil Rich People
it's actually a pretty good post, if you read it like an Onion article.
Re: Evil Rich People
wait, I thought you were the one wanting honest dialogue and getting mad when people were snarky and sarcastic in their responses to your posts?
Just Ledoux it
Re: Evil Rich People
yea
but that was before mjl dismissed an entire dialogue on "false premise" terms, then advanced his own narrative on premises like "capitalism gives more economic decision making to the people than any", that alternatives seem to assume people are not greedy and power-hungry, "Capitalism is the only system that can keep that in check at all." And, despite any real substantive explanation or examples (or exceptions) to these premises, they're all supposed to be taken as true. Like complex economic observations can be oversimplified to, and should be understood as, some true-or-false premises.
lulz
but let's try for honest dialogue here: if there are "rules," then why do capitalists rail so hard against them? you know, all the "JoB KiLlInG ReGuLaTiOnS" rhetoric.
and if "there is no such thing as pure capitalism," then why argue so doggedly in favor of capitalism?
but that was before mjl dismissed an entire dialogue on "false premise" terms, then advanced his own narrative on premises like "capitalism gives more economic decision making to the people than any", that alternatives seem to assume people are not greedy and power-hungry, "Capitalism is the only system that can keep that in check at all." And, despite any real substantive explanation or examples (or exceptions) to these premises, they're all supposed to be taken as true. Like complex economic observations can be oversimplified to, and should be understood as, some true-or-false premises.
lulz
but let's try for honest dialogue here: if there are "rules," then why do capitalists rail so hard against them? you know, all the "JoB KiLlInG ReGuLaTiOnS" rhetoric.
and if "there is no such thing as pure capitalism," then why argue so doggedly in favor of capitalism?