>> Not exactly the huge disparity you describe.
>
> 3*15 = 45
>
> 3*60 = 180
>
> The gap is the important thing, not the factor.

That doesn't make any sense, to keep the gap the same the poorest 20% 
would need a far higher rate of income growth than the richest 20%. 
Eventually, in a few decades, if the gap is kept at say $45k, the 
richest will need to be earning $1m or whatever and the poorest $0.95m.

> The initial gap is what
> makes the disparity that much larger,

Go back far enough the presumably the gap gets almost to zero dollars?

> and as I said, when you compare the
> numbers to the rate of inflation, the story gets much worse for those in
> the lower 20th percentile of income.

Those figures already take into account inflation, as they are all based 
on the value of USD in 2007.

Post a reply to this message

> Between 1967 and 2003 here in the US, according to the US Census Bureau,
> people in the bottom 20% of incomes have seen their incomes raise an
> average of 28.4%. ($14,002 at the start and $17,984 in 2003)
>
> At the same time, people in the 95th percentile have seen their average
> incomes go up by about 78%. ($88,678 in '67, $154,120 in '03).

I was looking at figures globally, not just for one country. There must 
be reasons why the USA increases for the bottom 20% have not kept up 
with the global trend.

> I'm talking in the US, and those values don't appear to take inflation
> into account, it seems.

They all take inflation into account.

 > But those graphs also don't provide sources for
> their data, so they don't seem to be particularly useful.  I can create a
> graph that tells whatever story I want if I don't tell you the source of
> the data.

You can try googling "global income distribution", the answers are all 
the same.

Try pages 34 and 35 (pages 35 and 36 in the PDF) of this report.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/globalincometrends.pdf

The table "Income growth by decile" holds the key data. Essentially the 
low-mid earners have seen the largest growth, with the very lowest and 
high earners seeing lower growth (but still significantly positive). The 
only real negative growth (in real terms) was for those in the 75-85 
percentile from 1990-2000. In the same period the bottom 10% saw 12% growth.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:50:37 +0100, scott wrote:

>>> Not exactly the huge disparity you describe.
>>
>> 3*15 = 45
>>
>> 3*60 = 180
>>
>> The gap is the important thing, not the factor.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense, to keep the gap the same the poorest 20%
> would need a far higher rate of income growth than the richest 20%.
> Eventually, in a few decades, if the gap is kept at say $45k, the
> richest will need to be earning $1m or whatever and the poorest $0.95m.

Sure it does:

45 - 15 = 30

180 - 60 = 120

120 > 30

The factor isn't the important thing, the disparity is the important 
thing.

Both groups are subject to the same 600% inflation.  Those who now make 
$120K more than they did at the start of the period are far better off 
than those who only make $30K more, especially when both groups have 
similar fixed costs (the cost of a gallon of milk is not dependent on the 
purchaser's income - if I make $6K/year, I pay $4.50 for that gallon of 
milk, the same as someone who makes $100,000/year).

The base fixed costs are the same.

>> The initial gap is what makes the disparity that much larger,
> 
> Go back far enough the presumably the gap gets almost to zero dollars?

I never claimed that.

>> and as I said, when you compare the numbers to the rate of inflation,
>> the story gets much worse for those in the lower 20th percentile of
>> income.
> 
> Those figures already take into account inflation, as they are all based
> on the value of USD in 2007.

Citation?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:16:45 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Between 1967 and 2003 here in the US, according to the US Census
>> Bureau, people in the bottom 20% of incomes have seen their incomes
>> raise an average of 28.4%. ($14,002 at the start and $17,984 in 2003)
>>
>> At the same time, people in the 95th percentile have seen their average
>> incomes go up by about 78%. ($88,678 in '67, $154,120 in '03).
> 
> I was looking at figures globally, not just for one country. There must
> be reasons why the USA increases for the bottom 20% have not kept up
> with the global trend.

If I'm not mistaken, Patrick was talking about US numbers, so the 
comparison started out with an apples/oranges basis to start with.

>> I'm talking in the US, and those values don't appear to take inflation
>> into account, it seems.
> 
> They all take inflation into account.

All I saw were graphs in your citations, no notes on the data behind 
those, so I'll have to ask for links to those data sources.

>  > But those graphs also don't provide sources for
>> their data, so they don't seem to be particularly useful.  I can create
>> a graph that tells whatever story I want if I don't tell you the source
>> of the data.
> 
> You can try googling "global income distribution", the answers are all
> the same.

I want to know specifically what you're citing. :)

> Try pages 34 and 35 (pages 35 and 36 in the PDF) of this report.
> 
> http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/globalincometrends.pdf

Thank you.  I'll look at it when I have a few minutes.

> The table "Income growth by decile" holds the key data. Essentially the
> low-mid earners have seen the largest growth, with the very lowest and
> high earners seeing lower growth (but still significantly positive). The
> only real negative growth (in real terms) was for those in the 75-85
> percentile from 1990-2000. In the same period the bottom 10% saw 12%
> growth.

Again, though, growth factors are not the same as widening gaps in income 
disparity.  Someone who made $250K back in 1990 who makes $500K now has 
not had to deal with being part of the lower income class.  They've not 
had to make decisions between health care, food, housing, and clothes.

Someone who made $6,000 back then and makes even $20,000 now does have to 
evaluate those kinds of decisions, because they're below the poverty line.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/08/2013 8:32 AM, scott wrote:
>
> Any evidence for that comment? Even in the last 40 years the poor have
> not been getting poorer:

You have to remember that poverty is relative. Coming up for 200 years 
ago during the Irish famine. If you were one of the poor, having a metal 
spoon was a luxury. Now if you have not got Sky or cable you are 
deprived. I did not have a colour TV until the 1980's and no one thought 
that was poverty. Although we have had colour transmission since the 
late 70's.
As someone who has live through 40 years in the UK and then some. I 
think that you are misguided, if not just plain wrong. No matter what 
figures people come up with.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2013 11:01 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:16:45 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>>> Between 1967 and 2003 here in the US, according to the US Census
>>> Bureau, people in the bottom 20% of incomes have seen their incomes
>>> raise an average of 28.4%. ($14,002 at the start and $17,984 in 2003)
>>>
>>> At the same time, people in the 95th percentile have seen their average
>>> incomes go up by about 78%. ($88,678 in '67, $154,120 in '03).
>>
>> I was looking at figures globally, not just for one country. There must
>> be reasons why the USA increases for the bottom 20% have not kept up
>> with the global trend.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Patrick was talking about US numbers, so the
> comparison started out with an apples/oranges basis to start with.
>
Yes, in fact, I was, given the rather simple fact that, for me, its kind 
of irrelevant if someone in African can buy two sandwiches, when people 
in the US might not, by the same token, be able, without government 
help, to buy just the bread itself, never mind anything else in the 
sandwich, while working 50+ hours a week, and at two jobs.

And, there are several reasons, but one "big" one is the current 
"economic theory" supported buy US lunitarian movement.

US "libertarians" are not like those every place else. The best 
descriptions for their philosophy I have seen are -

On government help: The government is too big, and doesn't help

On worker wages: They can always find a job with more pay, even though 
90% of all jobs are not "service" in the US, and they all pay minimum 
wage (this isn't even necessary, since they ran the numbers, and fast 
food places could pass on 100% of the difference to the customer, at a 
mere 50 cent increase in the cost of the food, while **doubling** the 
salaries of everyone that worked for them, including the CEOs).

On price gouging: You can always buy something else, somewhere else, 
which is cheaper.

On crappy products: Well.. you can always buy the more costly item, 
which won't be a piece of total crap.

On regulation: Regulations are bad, if they stifle my business, but 
good, if they stifle worker's rights.

On personal responsibility: Everyone should be responsible for their own 
mistakes, but.. uh, I didn't actually mean "me" when I said that!

and so on...

On their general logic: "I have mine, so fuck you!"

You can add to this decades, since Reagan, and his voodoo economics 
(people with more money than god will open thousands of new businesses, 
and pay people more money, without someone making them, instead of 
sitting on it, or funneling it to offshore accounts, so it will all 
"trickle back down"), as well as undermining education, especially 
cheap, accessible education, as a result in major changes in regulations 
he imposed on colleges, attacks on social programs, an unwillingness to 
spend money of say.. roads, instead of military campaigns, and the fact 
that, for the same number of decades supposed "experts" teaching MBAs 
have been "teaching" that "free markets" are better than well regulated 
ones, socialism is always bad, no matter what the social program is, and 
that Reagan's model of economics is "sane", instead of totally 
delusional, and.. pretty much the vast majority of CEOs think that the 
whole entire problem is everyone else's fault, and these things will fix it:

1. More, less precise patents, to "protect" their nebulous ideas.

2. Less environmental, worker related, safety, or any other kind of 
"stifling" regulations.

3. Eliminating social programs, so all those damn whiners will go out of 
find jobs (because, already working, in some cases, at 5 jobs, 70 hours 
a week, all of them minimum wage, just to feed you family and then 
"also" having to have government aid, to fill in the gaps, mean you are 
"lazy, and not trying hard enough."

No, seriously, this is **exactly** what these idiots and their political 
lap dogs, keep claiming.

4. Getting rid of minimum wages (which they insist are actually "too 
high". o.O

5. Getting rid of all unions, because maybe 2% of them are actually bad, 
but **all of them**, even in states that make them almost illegal (or at 
least ineffective), like the "right to work" ones, where any concessions 
they do manage to force apply to "everyone", not just the union workers, 
thereby removing the incentive to join on in the first place. Well, 
other than the fact that, even in those states, if you didn't have some 
of them, you are screwed anyway), all because they "force unreasonable 
demands on the company."

You want to know what "unreasonable" is? A grocery chain called Krogers 
thought it would be unfair to reduce some of its staff to a minimum 
wage, when it wasn't before, and several other things which I don't know 
all the details of. The union disintegrated, and now Krogers pays 
**everyone** no matter what job they have, which department they work 
in, or how long they have been there, "minimum wage".

It went from an objection about them taking money, and thus food, out of 
the pockets of people with kids, who worked for them, because they 
claimed they "had to" to save money, during a year when they made 
billions in profits, despite the "slow economy", to screwing **all** of 
their workers, including the ones that where already working there, for 
decades.

This is the stuff happening in the US, and what all those people, who 
the media lambasted, the president ignored, and all the politicians, and 
anyone else with an agenda to make it seem like there was no legitimate 
cause being promoted by them, sometimes called the "Occupy Movement", 
but mostly just called, "dirty, lazy, unwilling to find work, etc., 
etc." Because.. its not like there where, and still are, millions of 
people out of work here, and no one willing to hire them, or tens of 
millions more, being paid crap wages who, for the most part, didn't show 
up at the rallies **purely** because, literally, couldn't afford to lose 
one single days pay, never mind their, possibly conservative, boss, 
firing them for attending one, then claiming it was, for legal reasons, 
for something else. Though.. most of them could, probably, have gotten 
by with firing them using the catch all for "things we don't want our 
workers to do, even in their free time, off the job, or in the privacy 
of their own homes, should we somehow find out they are doing them", 
which is called, "Negatively impacting the image of the business."


>> The table "Income growth by decile" holds the key data. Essentially the
>> low-mid earners have seen the largest growth, with the very lowest and
>> high earners seeing lower growth (but still significantly positive). The
>> only real negative growth (in real terms) was for those in the 75-85
>> percentile from 1990-2000. In the same period the bottom 10% saw 12%
>> growth.
>
> Again, though, growth factors are not the same as widening gaps in income
> disparity.  Someone who made $250K back in 1990 who makes $500K now has
> not had to deal with being part of the lower income class.  They've not
> had to make decisions between health care, food, housing, and clothes.
>

And, in fact, in the US, this isn't even accurate either. The low-mid 
are "falling" into the lowest category, while the rich are gaining (at, 
as has been pointed out, a much slower rate than, stupidly, they did 
when they a) actually had to pay taxes, and higher taxes, and b) 
actually paid their workers better wages). The middle class, in the US, 
are vanishing.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2013 2:41 AM, scott wrote:

> The industry is highly competitive (at least in UK), customers are free
> to keep their numbers and switch providers whenever their contract
> expires. Most contracts don't distinguish between calls/texts to one
> provider or another, and coverage is pretty much equal across all
> networks. There is no way one company would be able to charge
> significantly more than the others, they would simply lose customers.
> Net profit at Vodafone UK was 1.5% last year, not exactly excessive.
>
Well, I don't doubt this is true, and this is maybe a poor example of 
the effect. But, the real point is, the reason there is a market for 
"throw away" phones at all, outside of say.. drug dealers, is that some 
people can't afford $50 a month for to use *all* of the phones features. 
But, if you go to certain other countries, many of them ironically "less 
developed", you pay one flat fee, and a much smaller one, instead of 
tacking on everything separately. Its symptomatic of the, "Even though 
it costs *us* the same to send you voice between two places as it does 
to download an app, we are going to charge you extra, for the second 
one, even if you use it less than one time a month." And, you see this 
logic with just about everything, except, maybe, the internet.

>> And, you think we fix this by taking a budget of roughly $1300 a month,
>> where like all but a few bucks of that goes to insurance, rent, food,
>> heating, etc., to buy a $20 item, from a slightly less insane company,
>> instead of a $10 one, from Walmart... Yeah, that has worked "so well",
>> so far, given the huge amount of extra, left over, income everyone has,
>> at the end of every month...
>
> I think you're making exactly the same point as me, the fact is people
> would rather have a bit bigger house, a bit nicer food, a bit bigger TV,
> a bit better phone etc rather than paying a bit extra to get something
> that they can say is made locally. Most people would rather take the £10
> Walmart option, if it means they've got another $10 to allow them to get
> the latest iPhone or more TV channels or whatever.
>

Let me try to put the US situation in starker contrast, since we are 
talking about "levels of poverty". From a purely practical stand point, 
without government assistance, and working a normal 40 hour week, within 
a year, if this condition where somehow "imposed" on the poor in the US 
(and there are people that want to cut back, or even eliminate the 
programs that help them), we would probably have stacks of bodies in the 
streets, no one would have a TV in those neighborhoods, never mind 
anything else, since all of their money would be going to rent, and 
*maybe* food, when they could afford it, and I wouldn't be surprised if 
we saw a sudden industry of "clothes made from the rich people's news 
papers" pop up, to replace the clothes they couldn't buy with the money 
they didn't make.

Its only not that bad **yet** because a) they do get government help, b) 
they are working anything from 2, to in some insane cases, 5 jobs, at 
anything from 50-90 hours a week, and c) everyone shops at walmart, 
k-mart, and.. all the other "big corp" companies, whose workers are all 
the same, "minimum wage, but we can only give you 15 hours this week", 
jobs, which result in people having 2, 3, 4, or more of them.

So.. I suppose, if you want to define "not poverty" as, "working like 
slave labor", and, "At least the government doesn't make you stand in 
bread lines.", then.. sure.. we can claim its not that "bad" in the US. 
But, if you think that is an insane way to live, and it sounds like most 
of the country is one idiot legislative bill from becoming a Somalian 
refugee, we might be finally be on the same page.

The people in charge, right now, are the inmates of the asylum over here.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:06:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On regulation: Regulations are bad, if they stifle my business, but
> good,
> if they stifle worker's rights.

Yep, just look at the recent problems with lack of regulation in Texas - 
and then that Rick Perry is advertising in other states about how *easy* 
it is to set up business in Texas because they don't have a lot of 
regulation.

Yeah, they don't have a lot of regulation, just the highest capital 
punishment rate and a bunch of dead people from an explosion that 
would've probably been prevented by some sensible oversight and 
regulation.

But who cares, it's just a few dead people, right?  Bring your CA/IL/NY 
based business to Texas, because we care so little about regulation, 
we're prepared to let people die so we don't have to have any.

m-/

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2013 2:52 AM, scott wrote:
>>> A long time ago you could only buy local, between then and now (when
>>> there was plenty of choice) everyone has voted with their wallets that
>>> they would rather buy the cheaper non-local mass-produced items. Large
>>> corporations are simply providing us with what we want. If they thought
>>> everyone wanted local items (and were happy to pay a premium), they'd
>>> sell local items.
>>>
>> No, they won't.
>
> They would if there was more profit in it for them. There isn't because
> people aren't willing to pay the extra.
>
No, as I said, in the US, its not "unwilling", its "unable", most of the 
time.

I mean, we literally have morons who work in my store, complaining that 
"poor people on food stamps are 'allowed' to buy luxury goods, like TVs, 
but keeping a few bucks a month", for an entire damn year, just to be 
able to afford one. They actually think, "They need to get a better job 
like mine, somewhere, and stop using food stamps." And, they are saying 
this to someone who a) thought they management had changes his job title 
3 years ago, and just got screwed over by the company, is still making 
minimum wage, is averaging 32 hours a week, doesn't pay for his own 
food, electricity, etc., due to living with other people, who can 
actually afford them, and **knows** that, if I ever had to rent my own 
place, before I even paid the first months rent, I would ***have to*** 
got to the nearest agency, and sign up for assistance, to make ends 
meet. Oh, and these same people **know** that the jobs in town divide up 
like this, more or less:

5% walmart - minimum wage
5% k-mart - minimum wage
5% sterilite (a cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but 
they require 10 hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days 
one week, then 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if 
it was 10 '8 hour' days.
10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours a 
week.
70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at 
$3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then.. 
nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the 
staff, including management.
10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
5% The assholes that own all of it.

This is in a state where "minimum" is *now*, as of a few months ago, 
$7.80/hr, and the average cost, per month, to live here is, in fact 
(this is two parents, with one kid):

Monthly Housing 		$723
Monthly Food 			$514
Monthly Taxes			$251
Monthly Healthcare		$280
Monthly Childcare		$499
Monthly Transportation		$468
Monthly Other Necessities	$297
==============================
Total: $3,032, or 388.7 hours a month, or 97 hours a week.
In one of the "higher cost" places in the state, it is: $3,521, or 451.5 
hours a month, or 113 work hours a week.

They state legislature thought that raising it from $7.65 would be a 
"huge" improvement... But, no matter how you look at it, it means 
someone has two jobs, if they can find even one 40 hour job in the first 
place, but.. the average job is 15-20 hours, 30, if you are lucky, so.. 
even then, in some place like the city I live in, which those numbers 
come from, one of them is working a single, 30 hour job, and the other 
is working "two" 30 hours jobs, or both of them are working, on the 
worst case, two 15 hour jobs, and "still" coming up 7 hours short, in 
either case, of paying the bills, never mind saving any money after.

None of this would be "quite" so bad, if you could find a 40 hour job 
any place, like at all, but giving someone 40 hours means actually 
providing them with "legally mandated" things, which "includes" 
insurance, better pay, actual raises, etc. All that stuff that "might" 
result in someone saving money, instead of blowing it all on silly 
things like utility bills.

The level of completely delusional thinking among people that should 
know better here, and outright denial of how bad it is, not to mention 
why, is.. beyond belief, in a lot of cases. Some parts of the country, 
the "cost of living" isn't any lower, the minimum is, and its all the 
same, "I am sorry, we can't give you more hours this week, but.. we an 
hire two new people, and give each of them 15 hours.", BS.

And, as I said before.. there are people that are, progressively, 
arguing that there shouldn't be a minimum at all, and, might have, if 
there was a Republican in office, actually eliminated the federal 
minimum, or, at least lowered it, followed by some of the more insane, 
and delusional, state legislatures.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2013 8:05 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 20:45:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> No, they won't. Those corporations didn't just edge out small businesses
>> by selling non-local goods. Most local businesses, with the exception of
>> food providers, or other "immediate sale" types, ordered parts, or
>> goods,
>> had them shipped to them, in smaller, more expensive, volumes, or
>> special ordered them, and then you waited. The big corporations could do
>> "volume"
>> purchases, hire their own, lower paid shippers, then undercut the prices
>> of the local sellers, even selling the **exact identical items**.
>
> I spent about a decade working in the food & drug industry as an IT
> professional, and towards the end of the time, when my "Fortune 50"
> company was acquired by another Fortune 50 company, we had to take a
> course on "retail business basics".
>
> In that course, one of the things we talked about was the death of the
> "mom & pop" style grocery store.  Companies like ours were responsible
> for those smaller local shops going away for precisely the reasons you
> state, Patrick:  Volume purchases, the ability to sell some items at a
> loss (which is actually a sound strategy, because you lay the store out
> so you have more impulse purchases and drive the average sale up).
>
> But here was the interesting thing (and part of the reason that the
> combined larger company itself became an acquisition target - that and
> incompetent senior management, IMHO):  Walmart was (and is) doing the
> exact same thing to stores that focused on just food & drug.  Walmart
> leverages the welfare system in (IMHO) an unconscionable way to drive
> prices even lower than what food & drug retailers (who deal with unions
> in most states) can afford.  A not insignificant number of Walmart part
> time employees have to supplement their income with food stamps or other
> forms of welfare because they don't make a living wage (the ironic
> statement that "Walmart employees can't even afford to shop at Walmart"
> is sadly true in a lot of cases).
>
> So now the food & drug giants like Safeway, Albertson's, Supervalu, and
> so on are faced with being on the receiving end of what they did to the
> mom & pop grocery stores.  To say they're not liking it is an
> understatement.
>
> Jim
>
True, but, as I implied in another post farther up, there are two 
solutions to this:

1. Fix the problem from the only end that can - hint, its not the 
consumer, or the businesses who can do that, since one doesn't have the 
purchasing power to force a real change, and the other is the one 
getting its ass kicked.

2. Cave in, and do the same thing Walmart is doing, and either don't ask 
the government to do anything, or help elect the very people that 
*won't*, since.. after all, having picked this solution, if someone goes 
and fixes the damn thing... guess who else loses, besides Walmart.

Guess which one "some" of the other grocery stores have picked, along 
with other "Walmart competitors"...

Post a reply to this message

>> Any evidence for that comment? Even in the last 40 years the poor have
>> not been getting poorer:
>
> You have to remember that poverty is relative. Coming up for 200 years
> ago during the Irish famine. If you were one of the poor, having a metal
> spoon was a luxury. Now if you have not got Sky or cable you are
> deprived. I did not have a colour TV until the 1980's and no one thought
> that was poverty. Although we have had colour transmission since the
> late 70's.

Indeed, that's my point, since 1850 there has been a continuous slope of 
upwards improvement in the wealth of people in real terms. What was 
considered a luxury in 1900 was common-place in 1950, and what was 
considered a luxury in 1950 is common-place today. That trend is not 
changing, and IMO is a large part due to industrialisation, 
mass-production and education. If you look at the income rates before 
1850 it's pretty flat compared to what we've seen in the last 150 years.

This is why I really don't agree with people's reasoning about buying or 
producing locally. That's what we used to do and it's not very 
efficient, the people who would have been doing manual labour in 
factories or fields from the age of 10 are now generating far more 
wealth by being a shop assistant in Tesco or maintaining a machine in a 
food factory. This in turn allows them to have a warm, heated house with 
a hot meal every day, new clothes (and Sky TV, an iPhone and a holiday 
abroad each year etc). Their equivalents from 1900 could only dream of 
such luxuries.

> As someone who has live through 40 years in the UK and then some. I
> think that you are misguided, if not just plain wrong. No matter what
> figures people come up with.

Well I guess there is no more I can say then :-(

Post a reply to this message

> Well, I don't doubt this is true, and this is maybe a poor example of
> the effect. But, the real point is, the reason there is a market for
> "throw away" phones at all, outside of say.. drug dealers, is that some
> people can't afford $50 a month for to use *all* of the phones features.
> But, if you go to certain other countries, many of them ironically "less
> developed", you pay one flat fee, and a much smaller one, instead of
> tacking on everything separately.

You don't think maybe, because your population density is what, 10x 
lower than places like Japan or Korea that it actually costs more, per 
subscriber, to run the system in the US? And you haven't factored in how 
much governments subsidise the industry (either directly or indirectly 
in terms of tax rates), nor what the typical pay rates are in those 
countries.

Post a reply to this message

> Sure it does:
>
> 45 - 15 = 30
>
> 180 - 60 = 120
>
> 120 > 30
>
> The factor isn't the important thing, the disparity is the important
> thing.

The problem is if you try and keep the arithmetic difference constant, 
whilst still allowing economic growth, the "bell curve" of income will 
get narrower and narrower until everyone is earning essentially the 
same. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not, but that's the 
only option to allow what you are arguing for.

Post a reply to this message

> 5% walmart - minimum wage
> 5% k-mart - minimum wage
> 5% sterilite (a cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but
> they require 10 hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days
> one week, then 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if
> it was 10 '8 hour' days.
> 10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours a
> week.
> 70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at
> $3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then..
> nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the
> staff, including management.
> 10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
> 5% The assholes that own all of it.

Seems a very bad place to live if 85% of the jobs are (almost) minimum 
wage - I'd move to a different city where the distribution better 
reflects your typical national distribution.

Post a reply to this message

I was only a few days away from off-topic and then this happened and 
then I need a couple of hours to catch up. :(

Anyway, I get your point even if it is not the best example (AFAIK there 
was no real existing mosquito net market). Clothes is indeed a better one.

As for my own field. I had the pleasure the last year to go a couple of 
times to hospitals in less developed countries (tanzania, rwanda and the 
amazon region). There often is equipment but it is second hand and often 
broken (even when it arrived). This broken equipment draws valuable 
resources to get fixed. There are plenty of examples where donated 
equipment (dubbed "Junk for Jesus" by a friend of mine, after the most 
common source) made the situation worse.
At one place they were offered a new CT machine, including service for 
two years (uncommon, generally things are donated as is). The staff with 
experience was seriously considering turning the offer down. After that 
period they would have to fix it themselves, they knew they would lack 
money and expertise to do so.
(Aside, my field is cardiology as some of you may remember. There was 
one functioning ECG machine in one of the biggest hospitals in the 
country, but they did have two state of the art echo-machines, and by 
now perhaps also a CT. Well, if they also can use that to get a CT from 
the heart, they will have another ECG amplifier when the CT itself 
collapses in 3 years)
So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try to 
neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)

There are hardly any biomedical technicians in these regions and they 
never were there so there is in that sense no market disruption.
Some years ago GE wanted to donate equipment to a hospital in Rwanda, 
the director of that hospital (no points for guessing her gender) said: 
"that is OK, provided you train my technicians also". Which resulted in 
a training program that was set up with founding money from GE. The 
course was set up in such a way that the technicians during their 
training still had to work in their own hospitals. I hope most of them 
will keep their jobs after they have finished their training.
An interesting point will also be if they will get more pay because they 
are now qualified to do the job they already did. Especially because 
there is no money to begin with.
BTW I though it was quite funny to see someone mentioning that not 
having to buy clothes would free up that money to be spend on other 
things. Understandable for someone from a society where everything is 
convertible into money, but funny anyway.

On 31-7-2013 19:42, Shay wrote:
> We've all heard stories of misguided charity organizations destroying
> micro-economies with no-cost goods. The stories go something like this:
>
> * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
> * The poor people sell the nets for food
> * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
> * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
> * The no-cost mosquito nets get sold-off / used up
> * No more mosquito nets. No more craftsmen.
>
> Google, Apple, and Microsoft are now monetizing no/low-cost software and
> *intentionally*(?) creating the above situation. The creators of that
> software are making nothing or (MUCH worse) very little. The 'very
> little' is much worse, imo, because I suspect the half-starved parasites
> will fight to defend the host.
>
> Not saying (or not saying) the large companies are evil, just wondering
> if we should all be more careful where we put our "spare" money, time,
> talent, and personal information.
>
> Just a hunch. Definitely open to changing my mind on this one. I'm very
> far away from the issue.
>
> -Shay


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:34:18 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Sure it does:
>>
>> 45 - 15 = 30
>>
>> 180 - 60 = 120
>>
>> 120 > 30
>>
>> The factor isn't the important thing, the disparity is the important
>> thing.
> 
> The problem is if you try and keep the arithmetic difference constant,
> whilst still allowing economic growth, the "bell curve" of income will
> get narrower and narrower until everyone is earning essentially the
> same. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not, but that's the
> only option to allow what you are arguing for.

The problem is that those at the top of the scale now make 6-7 times (or 
more) what those at the bottom of the scale make.  That makes for a 
massive amount of income inequality.

Since in the US, money = speech (thank you, supreme court & citizen's 
united), that means that those in the upper income brackets have far more 
political power and control - and what those in that upper bracket have 
tended to do is get people elected (through the use of their massive 
ability to "speak" (or "spend") to get policies passed that allow the 
income inequality to continue and to hamper upward mobility.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:55:50 +0100, scott wrote:

>> 5% walmart - minimum wage 5% k-mart - minimum wage 5% sterilite (a
>> cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but they require 10
>> hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days one week, then
>> 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if it was 10 '8
>> hour' days.
>> 10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours
>> a week.
>> 70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at
>> $3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then..
>> nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the
>> staff, including management.
>> 10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
>> 5% The assholes that own all of it.
> 
> Seems a very bad place to live if 85% of the jobs are (almost) minimum
> wage - I'd move to a different city where the distribution better
> reflects your typical national distribution.

Not everybody has the option to move.  Moving costs money, and if you 
don't make enough money to relocate, you're kinda screwed.

Your privilege is showing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2013 2:29, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Its only not that bad **yet** because a) they do get government help, b)
> they are working anything from 2, to in some insane cases, 5 jobs, at
> anything from 50-90 hours a week, and c) everyone shops at walmart,
> k-mart, and.. all the other "big corp" companies, whose workers are all
> the same, "minimum wage, but we can only give you 15 hours this week",
> jobs, which result in people having 2, 3, 4, or more of them.

One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to 
earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during 
their dinners and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal 
people. And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with 
developments in the real world.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:52018f9a$1@news.povray.org...
> On 8/6/2013 11:01 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>
> US "libertarians" are not like those every place else. The best 
> descriptions for their philosophy I have seen are -

Is this really what you think the 25y/o Ron Paul supporters have in mind. 
Disagree if you will, but know your "enemy."

>
> On government help: The government is too big, and doesn't help

On government help: The beast has many faces. More money to the government 
means more guns, more bombs, more drones. You can't fill only the left half 
of the bucket.

>
> On worker wages: They can always find a job with more pay, even though 90% 
> of all jobs are not "service" in the US, and they all pay minimum wage 
> (this isn't even necessary, since they ran the numbers, and fast food 
> places could pass on 100% of the difference to the customer, at a mere 50 
> cent increase in the cost of the food, while **doubling** the salaries of 
> everyone that worked for them, including the CEOs).

On worker wages: "Minimum wage" isn't the minimum wage: ZERO is the minimum 
wage. Many of us worked for less that minimum wage (I did) to get into 
certain trades. Salesmen are some of the highest-paid professionals; Many of 
the best started off door-to-door, making less than minimum wage. We’re 
kicking the ladder out from under would-be salesmen, mechanics, musicians, 
and carpenters. MUCH more importantly ... (see below)

>
> On price gouging: You can always buy something else, somewhere else, which 
> is cheaper.

On price gouging: Mercantilism is WRONG. The same people who would set 
prices ...
Would exclude Walmart from local taxation in the name of economic growth ...
Would literally go to war to grow the economy.

>
> On crappy products: Well.. you can always buy the more costly item, which 
> won't be a piece of total crap.

On crappy products: We agree that our government is selected by billionaires 
for the benefit of billionaires. The difference is one of us would give that 
government the power of selective taxation (tarriffs).

>
> On regulation: Regulations are bad, if they stifle my business, but good, 
> if they stifle worker's rights.

On regulation: Regulation is how we cut up the big fish (and feed them to 
the giant fish).

>
> On personal responsibility: Everyone should be responsible for their own 
> mistakes, but.. uh, I didn't actually mean "me" when I said that!

On personal responsibility: If you wish to share the consequences of your 
choices, you'll also have to share the authority over those choices.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 5:22 PM, Shay wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:52018f9a$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 8/6/2013 11:01 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>
>> US "libertarians" are not like those every place else. The best
>> descriptions for their philosophy I have seen are -
>
> Is this really what you think the 25y/o Ron Paul supporters have in
> mind. Disagree if you will, but know your "enemy."
>
Maybe not, but they are not the actually people who make the policy. 
Just look at what Obama ended up "supporting", after he got in, never 
mind what he actually did try to do, which liberals actually support. 
But, no.. I am not talking about what the 25 year olds "think" they 
would do, I am talking about what they actually have done, every time 
they get elected some place. Well, that and what they have said when 
they imagine that there isn't a camera around.

>>
>> On government help: The government is too big, and doesn't help
>
> On government help: The beast has many faces. More money to the
> government means more guns, more bombs, more drones. You can't fill only
> the left half of the bucket.
>
Actually.. Sort of true, and sort of not. A lot of that depends on who 
is in charge, and what they are actually trying to do. So, in the US, 
the right has gone farther right, and the left (or rather the party that 
claims to be them) has gone center. And, well... the center isn't 
exactly against guns, bombs, and more drones...

>>
>> On worker wages: They can always find a job with more pay, even though
>> 90% of all jobs are not "service" in the US, and they all pay minimum
>> wage (this isn't even necessary, since they ran the numbers, and fast
>> food places could pass on 100% of the difference to the customer, at a
>> mere 50 cent increase in the cost of the food, while **doubling** the
>> salaries of everyone that worked for them, including the CEOs).
>
> On worker wages: "Minimum wage" isn't the minimum wage: ZERO is the
> minimum wage. Many of us worked for less that minimum wage (I did) to
> get into certain trades. Salesmen are some of the highest-paid
> professionals; Many of the best started off door-to-door, making less
> than minimum wage. We’re kicking the ladder out from under would-be
> salesmen, mechanics, musicians, and carpenters. MUCH more importantly
> ... (see below)
>
Ah, yes, once more the hypothesis that libertarians push, that, despite 
all disparities, the limitations of the job market, or minor things like 
starving to death, because you don't actually have the education, or any 
number of other things, that the much smaller number of people who 
actually succeed that way do, "You to can succeed!". Hell, 90% of 
businesses opened by people that have money, do, more or less, know what 
they are doing, and shouldn't fail, fail anyway. Some of us, if we had 
to take that "sub-minimum wage" would never survive the experience. 
Some... would thrive in it. Still others, would, on finding they 
couldn't succeed by legitimate means, add to the drug, prostitution, 
gang violence, and so on, crimes (at least one of which is only a crime 
because of the far right, that think its "sin", and refuse to accept 
"legitimate" versions of it, never mind extend legal protections to the 
people involved, and.. kind of like the drug business, only the sellers, 
and the buyers, end up in jail, the suppliers.. usually, just find more 
sellers, and more buyers.)

>>
>> On price gouging: You can always buy something else, somewhere else,
>> which is cheaper.
>
> On price gouging: Mercantilism is WRONG. The same people who would set
> prices ...
> Would exclude Walmart from local taxation in the name of economic growth
> ...
> Would literally go to war to grow the economy.
>
Hmm.. See, the problem there is, more and more people buy, "off the net" 
now, rather than from the mercantile businesses. How long before its not 
"Walmart" that is killing things, but "The internet"? Hint: I have 
bought about 2 things, out of like 30, in the last few months, because 
no local company sells any of them, nor can they "special order them". 
Hell, I couldn't even buy faux fur, for making ears, to go on a costume 
I plan to make for Halloween, because no material store in town sells 
it, K-Mart no longer has a fabric department, Walmart is fazing their 
own out, and didn't have anything other than basic stuff in the first 
place, and the "craft store", in this case, Hobbie Lobby, had jack all 
of anything either (even though they had much more selection).

There are too many products for "any" store to provide access any more, 
unless its like jewelry, or some other, "make as needed, or buy 
something we happen to have in stock", type thing, at this point. In the 
end, they are probably all dead, even the mercantile ones. But, in the 
mean time, insisting that, without them, somehow it would never have 
gotten this screwed up, is.. just not reality. At best, it might have 
taken longer, but.. US libertarianism, since it fundamentally denies 
parts of the problem, and insists that the market can somehow "fix 
itself", isn't an answer. The only times in history that the "market" 
was ever allowed to do that, real people suffered the consequences, 
until it **eventually** did fix itself, decades later, or someone 
stepped in and changed the system.

>>
>> On crappy products: Well.. you can always buy the more costly item,
>> which won't be a piece of total crap.
>
> On crappy products: We agree that our government is selected by
> billionaires for the benefit of billionaires. The difference is one of
> us would give that government the power of selective taxation (tarriffs).
>
Uh.. I am not sure why you imagine I would. Mind.. There is a difference 
between doing that to "support" the growth of new industry, and doing it 
to just screw them. For example, the energy companies pretty much lie, 
and lie, and lie, about wanting to get away from doing things the same 
way, for as long as they can manage, while only pretending that they 
actually give a damn about finding "other" sources.

>>
>> On regulation: Regulations are bad, if they stifle my business, but
>> good, if they stifle worker's rights.
>
> On regulation: Regulation is how we cut up the big fish (and feed them
> to the giant fish).
>
Bullshit. When its done right, it keeps the big fish from eating up the 
small fish, and towns, and people, and so on. The problem, of course, if 
that when you let the damn corporations buy the regulations, *then* they 
start eating everyone else, and getting bigger, exactly as you describe. 
Its interesting how that actually works. Its sort of like patents, or IP 
rights. When they "worked" patents only applied to demonstrable things, 
not vague ideas, or trivial ways of doing things. IP right, used to 
reach the public domain. What has happened in the last 20-30 years, and 
which I haven't heard one damn libertarian attack, instead of defending 
- Patents are now so vague that, if you worded it right, you could 
probably patent breathing, and IP, as of just this year, can be taken 
from the public, and sold to some big company, at the governments 
discretion, on the theory that "corporations have rights to own things", 
but, apparently, the "public" doesn't.

>>
>> On personal responsibility: Everyone should be responsible for their
>> own mistakes, but.. uh, I didn't actually mean "me" when I said that!
>
> On personal responsibility: If you wish to share the consequences of
> your choices, you'll also have to share the authority over those choices.
>
Cute.. But, in reality, its always the rich business owner, even among 
libertarians, who gets the "authority".

It was bad Sci-Fi, seriously, and Ayn Rand was a nutcase.

> -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 12:11 AM, scott wrote:
> This is why I really don't agree with people's reasoning about buying or
> producing locally. That's what we used to do and it's not very
> efficient, the people who would have been doing manual labour in
> factories or fields from the age of 10 are now generating far more
> wealth by being a shop assistant in Tesco or maintaining a machine in a
> food factory. This in turn allows them to have a warm, heated house with
> a hot meal every day, new clothes (and Sky TV, an iPhone and a holiday
> abroad each year etc). Their equivalents from 1900 could only dream of
> such luxuries.


Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes, 
put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you 
mention. But then, I haven't met a libertarian that seems to have ever 
met such a person, understood what they go through, or, for that matter, 
when/if they do, ever believe they are growing in number, and that all 
those companies, selling all those "luxuriates" while paying the workers 
crap wages, are helping make it happen.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 10:13 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 7-8-2013 2:29, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Its only not that bad **yet** because a) they do get government help, b)
>> they are working anything from 2, to in some insane cases, 5 jobs, at
>> anything from 50-90 hours a week, and c) everyone shops at walmart,
>> k-mart, and.. all the other "big corp" companies, whose workers are all
>> the same, "minimum wage, but we can only give you 15 hours this week",
>> jobs, which result in people having 2, 3, 4, or more of them.
>
> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
> people. And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
> developments in the real world.
>
>
lol Wow.. Really? They need 20x as much money, or more, than it takes to 
buy, pay the taxes on, and fill their houses with the same crap everyone 
else does, because they "work harder"? Yeah.. Those single parents, who 
have to make up for the fact that they still have nearly the same net 
costs are a two parent home, with both working, and thus work 70-80 
hours a week, and hasn't had a vacation in 10 years, while he CEO is 
sitting on a beach some place, are working so much less hard than the CEO..

Seriously, as just on example, one of the damned "bosses" I have is 
supposed to be there 10 hours a day, 4 days out of the week, but is 
often there for 12-13 hours instead **and** he is a closer, so doesn't 
have to deal with customers much, or any of the other things the day 
managers have to deal with. The reason for him being there 12-13 hours a 
day, instead of 8, which one of the "non-managers" when they close 
manages to get things done it, while dealing with the same customer 
issues, the same in store issues, the same stocking issues, inventory 
management, and so on, is because, unlike every other bloody manager I 
have worked with (who almost always left when the store closed) is 
simply because he won't get off his ass and do his bloody work, until 
after all the help has left, and then, I spent more damn time doing crap 
the rest of them did themselves, for him, than he did.

More work, and harder.. Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 1:55 AM, scott wrote:
>> 5% walmart - minimum wage
>> 5% k-mart - minimum wage
>> 5% sterilite (a cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but
>> they require 10 hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days
>> one week, then 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if
>> it was 10 '8 hour' days.
>> 10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours a
>> week.
>> 70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at
>> $3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then..
>> nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the
>> staff, including management.
>> 10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
>> 5% The assholes that own all of it.
>
> Seems a very bad place to live if 85% of the jobs are (almost) minimum
> wage - I'd move to a different city where the distribution better
> reflects your typical national distribution.
>
Ah.. right.. Try - a different state. Only... Hmm. No, California, they 
pay about $3 more, but, the cost of living is often so much higher than 
the $3 will not make up the difference. You don't seem to be getting it. 
This problem is now ***in every city, and state***. Sure, there may be 
some total backwater places, which don't have the problem, but.. when, 
somehow, all those people that can barely pay rent, manage to scrape 
together the money to move to Midnowhere, Tennessee, the local market 
will have to expand, the companies that move in will be the same, and 
the cost of living will jump, and its the same crap all over. Though, 
mind you, somewhat ironically, the ***highest*** poverty levels, the 
highest unemployment, and the biggest supporters of getting rid of 
unions, minimum wage laws, worker protection laws, environmental laws, 
etc. is the **home** of companies like Walmart.

Its truly bizzare, but.. well, not too unexpected. The same states often 
make sales, and/or deliver, to your door, of porn, sex toys, and other 
things, illegal, promote abstinence education, and other similar 
nonsense, but have the **highest** national levels of teen pregnancies, 
incest, porn sales/ownership, and racism.

Its almost like that whole region of the country thinks its living in an 
alternate universe, where voting against the stuff they do, and 
supporting the politicians they do, etc., makes absolutely perfect 
sense, while *actually* living in this one, in which these things range 
between not working at all, to batshit insane.

Post a reply to this message

> Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes,
> put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you
> mention.

Indeed it's sad that we haven't reduced the number of people in that 
situation to 0%, but it's *a lot* better than the situation 100 years ago.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:13:35 +0200, andrel wrote:

> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners 

False dichotomy.  IT professionals work a lot, sometimes even during 
their dinners (or for 30-40 hours straight) and don't get paid like a CEO 
does.

> and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
> people. 

False dichotomy.  Nobody has job security.  Getting laid off taught me 
that.  Especially in the US, where "right to work" translates to "right 
for your employer to let you go for any reason or even no reason" with 
very few exceptions.

> And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
> developments in the real world.

False dichotomy.  See previous comment regarding IT professionals.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> "Patrick Elliott"  wrote in message news:520332b1@news.povray.org...

Just a general reply. Every anti-anti-authoritarian (make sure you read that 
one right) argument you give comes down to "It'll work if it's done right." 
The anti-authoritarian (Libertarian) view can be expressed semi-succinctly 
as "It's not being done right, or conscientiously. The government, military, 
and megacorps are three heads of the same beast. Feeding any of its thee 
mouth strengthens the entire animal. The beast cannot be controlled and has 
to die. I'm taking back what power I still have--while I still can."

Also, read about Mercantilism on Wikipedia. We aren't talking about the same 
thing.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel"  wrote in message news:520### [at] gmailcom...
> So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try to 
> neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)

Ha.

Yet, I still give to charity, though I try to be very careful about it.
Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that will 
make the world a better place.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that will 
> make the world a better place.

It would be nice if polio were completely eradicated like smallpox was,
but with the current politically correct western civilization that's
something that might not actually happen.

The eradication of smallpox in the 70's was rather "brutal" in the
sense that we just went to places and vaccinated people without asking.
Sometimes even by using borderline force. And it worked. It's basically
the first worldwide disease that caused millions of deaths that was
completely eradicated from the face of the Earth, and good riddance.

Polio is a different story, though. And not because it couldn't be
eradicated in the same way. No, it's different because the modern western
zeitgeist has changed a lot since the 70's. The western civilization has
built a self-loathing dogma that tells us that we just can't go there
and vaccinate people without asking. That's like colonialism and white
supremacy and stuff. We have to respect the local cultures and beliefs.

Which in practice means that some deluded people out there won't take
the vaccines because their belief system says that it's against the will
of their gods or BS like that. And as said, the modern western zeitgeist
is to submit to their beliefs and not force them.

Thus thousands and thousands of innocent people out there are going to
either die or be crippled for life every year because we are too
concerned with political correctness and avoiding the picture of
colonialism and western supremacy.

Basically, we are making up for centuries of colonialism by letting people
die and suffer horribly. Yay us.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?

On 8-8-2013 17:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:13:35 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
>> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
>> their dinners
>
> False dichotomy.  IT professionals work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners (or for 30-40 hours straight) and don't get paid like a CEO
> does.
>
>> and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
>> people.
>
> False dichotomy.  Nobody has job security.  Getting laid off taught me
> that.  Especially in the US, where "right to work" translates to "right
> for your employer to let you go for any reason or even no reason" with
> very few exceptions.
>
>> And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
>> developments in the real world.
>
> False dichotomy.  See previous comment regarding IT professionals.
>
> Jim
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/08/2013 8:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Basically, we are making up for centuries of colonialism by letting people
> die and suffer horribly. Yay us.

That is a fair point, IMO.
But AFAIK, you Finns don't have the collective guilt that we, (the 
Brits, Dutch, French etc.) have with our colonialism. I've worked in 
some of our former colonies and am aware of a few of the many bad things 
that were done in the name of civilising the natives. It is a touchy 
subject.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?

It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 15:38:50 -0400, Warp wrote:

> And as said, the modern western zeitgeist is to submit to their beliefs
> and not force them.

Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know 
better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.

Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I 
don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to 
recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an 
injection because *we say* it's good for them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2013 18:56, Shay wrote:
> "andrel"  wrote in message news:520### [at] gmailcom...
>> So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try
>> to neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)
>
> Ha.
>
> Yet, I still give to charity, though I try to be very careful about it.

Please do, and indeed think about what you are doing and the implications.
In our federation we sort of tend to just 'supply' knowledge and 
knowledgeable people. Even if we have the money to buy things that 
someone in a developing country needs that is often not a good idea in 
the long run.
I am advocating very much that the people in developing countries start 
developing their own biomedical-equipment as soon as possible. My main 
points are that almost all current equipment is designed to be 
irrepairable, uses consumables, and need a lot of other equipment to 
run. Like an electronic database with patient records. (attached a 
picture I took 2 years ago in Tanzania of the database system there. The 
lady you see on the back was the director of EWH.org )
That simply means that most of what we use now cannot be used in a 
developing country context, not now, not in 10 years time. The equipment 
donation business is about to collapse.

> Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that
> will make the world a better place.

Bill and Melissa are doing great work, but they don't cover all the 
problems.
BTW for many things the right people are still the most important 
aspect. You, with your skills, could do a lot of positive things in e.g. 
subsahara africa, much more than the average CEO of a small NGO.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'medrec.jpg' (157 KB)

Preview of image 'medrec.jpg'

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know 
> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.

We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.

Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
more protected those few are who do not.)

You can talk all you like about what their freedoms and rights are, but
we are also talking about saving people's lives. And as said, it's not
only *their* lives we are talking about. We cannot stop them from
committing suicide because of delusion, but we can stop them from
spreading the disease to others, many of whom do not hold the same
deluded beliefs and who would very much like to be spared from the
disease.

> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I 
> don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to 
> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an 
> injection because *we say* it's good for them.

The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we
are trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure
so that everybody will be a bit safer.

If you say "we shouldn't be forcing western values onto them", then I can
agree. If you say "we shouldn't be saving their and other people's lives
by force" then I have to disagree on principle.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:52041512@news.povray.org...

> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives.

Totalitarianism has cost millions and millions of lives. We can't have the 
benefits of totalitarianism without the costs.

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2013 0:00, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know
>> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.
>
> We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
> can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.
>
> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
> but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
> more protected those few are who do not.)
>
> You can talk all you like about what their freedoms and rights are, but
> we are also talking about saving people's lives. And as said, it's not
> only *their* lives we are talking about. We cannot stop them from
> committing suicide because of delusion, but we can stop them from
> spreading the disease to others, many of whom do not hold the same
> deluded beliefs and who would very much like to be spared from the
> disease.

In the Netherlands we have a small outbreak of measles. There are 
vaccines but in some areas enough parents refuse to get their children 
vaccinated because of 1) conservative religious reasons (we should not 
interfere in God's plans) 2) some sort of feeling that modern technology 
is always harmful (e.g. followers of Anthroposofic principles are often 
mentioned).

If we are unable to get everybody vaccinated here, is there any reason 
why it should work in Afghanistan, other than 'we know better, so you 
have to do what we say'?

There are also other sorts of distrust against vaccinations. For 
instance do you remember the attacks in India on polio workers?



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:00:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we
>> know better than you" and to force them to do something they don't
>> want.
> 
> We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
> can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.

There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people 
to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone who's 
forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.

If you were on the receiving end of something you were told was a 
lifesaving injection from someone who you perceived as acting in an 
imperialist way, would you take it?  Or would you be suspicious and fight 
back?  I know what I'd do.

> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
> but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
> more protected those few are who do not.)

Yes, I understand herd immunity, and it is an important thing.  But 
people are not cattle, and you can't just march into a country and start 
pumping drugs into people's bloodstream because you think it's a good 
idea (or even because it /is/ a good idea).

>> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but
>> I don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to
>> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an
>> injection because *we say* it's good for them.
> 
> The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
> evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we are
> trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure so that
> everybody will be a bit safer.

They *don't* know it.  They need to be educated and make a free choice.

> If you say "we shouldn't be forcing western values onto them", then I
> can agree. If you say "we shouldn't be saving their and other people's
> lives by force" then I have to disagree on principle.

I wish you and your medical army well.  Don't be surprised if the 
"natives" start shooting back because you're treating them like children 
or cattle.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> And as said, the modern western zeitgeist is to submit to their beliefs
>> and not force them.
>
> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know
> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.
>
> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I
> don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to
> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an
> injection because *we say* it's good for them.

On the other hand, nobody has the right to kill others by refusing a 
proven medical vaccination. But because you're only going to affect some 
statistic in a table of deaths in 10 years time, nobody cares.

The problem with this issue is that the person deciding whether to take 
the injection or not doesn't have to bear the full cost of their 
decision. For example by deciding not to have the injection that results 
in more people needing medical care or dying, plus the cost of 
continuing vaccinations for the rest of the world.

In order to make it fairer, the cost of treating and vaccinating the 
rest of the world should be divided up between the number of people who 
refuse the injection, and they are made to pay that. If they can't 
afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 09/08/2013 11:31, scott a écrit :
> If they can't afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)

But that's oppression of the poors by the richs!

(assuming you divide the amount, the formula used will be subject to
endless discussion : per head, per income, per wealth, per age... )

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

>> If they can't afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)
>
> But that's oppression of the poors by the richs!
>
> (assuming you divide the amount, the formula used will be subject to
> endless discussion : per head, per income, per wealth, per age... )

Age would be the major factor (as younger people generally have more 
years left to spread disease). Income and wealth are secondary factors 
(wealthier people tend to live longer), but the impact would be small 
compared to age, so for the sake of saving money on the admin and 
logistics, just do it by age. Or given that we can't expect children to 
make an informed decision (and they're the ones who can cause most 
damage by not having the injection) just force it on children and make 
everyone else pay the same (again, to make logistics easier).

Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just 
looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 09/08/2013 13:41, scott a écrit :

> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just
> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Me too ;-)

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

"scott"  wrote in message news:5204d562$1@news.povray.org...

> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just 
> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Logically, what will "we" do with the power establishment necessary to make 
this happen once our humanitarian mission is complete?

Post a reply to this message

>> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just
>> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)
>
> Logically, what will "we" do with the power establishment necessary to
> make this happen once our humanitarian mission is complete?

Oh there's plenty more to solve that would be possible now with such 
powers... AIDS would be a good start, that kills about 2 million people 
a year, given that a life is considered to be worth about $8m 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life) that means we should allow 
spending up to $16tn to eradicate it, then after a year we'd be in 
profit. $16tn is $2200 per person on the planet, should be plenty enough 
to test every person, however the question is what to do with the people 
who test positive.

You can't just kill them, because apparently there are estimated to be 
up to 35 million people, and that would far outweigh any benefit to 
eradicating AIDS in the short term. You could closely monitor them to 
ensure they don't spread the disease by any means, but that would 
certainly push the cost way above $2200. Best option would be ship them 
to a big island somewhere, preferably one already with an infrastrure 
(existing residents who don't have AIDS can swap lives with the incoming 
infected ones), they would live completely normal lives, jobs, have 
access to medical care, provide value to society and the economy etc, 
the only restriction being never allowed to leave the island and anyone 
who visits is also never allowed to leave, or maybe return visits could 
be allowed under very strict conditions. Job done.

Hmmm, what next?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people 
> to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone who's 
> forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.

Saving millions of people's lives is the same as "forcefully injecting
people for experimental purposes"? I think you are deliberately twisting
the issue.

It's not an experiment. We know that we can eradicate polio. We know that
we would be saving people's lives. There's no question about it.

Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

If your answer is no, then we have to disagree (and I'm tempted to use
some not-very-nice words to describe your attitude.)

If your answer is yes, then what exactly is the practical difference to
the polio vaccine situation? In both cases we would be saving the lives
of innocent people. Would it happen by force? Yes. Would it matter? No.

> > The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
> > evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we are
> > trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure so that
> > everybody will be a bit safer.

> They *don't* know it.  They need to be educated and make a free choice.

Would you stop human sacrifice when you see it, or would just "educate"
them and hope that perhaps one day they will change their rituals?

Every time you are not stopping human sacrifice when you would have the
means to do so, you are allowing an innocent person to die.

No, I just cannot agree with the bullshit sentiment that we should just
obey their wish to commit suicide and take tons of people with them, many
of them who would not want to die or get crippled for life. If they don't
agree, then it's too bad for them. They don't have a say when we are
talking about human life. Life takes priority over cultural bullshit.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:59:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people
>> to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone
>> who's forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.
> 
> Saving millions of people's lives is the same as "forcefully injecting
> people for experimental purposes"? I think you are deliberately twisting
> the issue.

Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to 
take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or that 
you know what you're talking about.

> It's not an experiment. We know that we can eradicate polio. We know
> that we would be saving people's lives. There's no question about it.

So you claim.  Again, from the perspective of the people you'd forcefully 
inject, how do they know you're telling them the truth?  History is 
littered with examples of people who did things to other people "for 
their own good", except it wasn't actually for an altruistic reason.

You're saying "trust me", but not providing a basis for that trust.

> Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
> engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for you 
and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those are 
even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.

> If your answer is yes, then what exactly is the practical difference to
> the polio vaccine situation? In both cases we would be saving the lives
> of innocent people. Would it happen by force? Yes. Would it matter? No.

Again, look at it from the perspective of being the one being forced to 
take the injection.  If you'd take that, then what else would you submit 
to because your government says it's good for you?  Or someone else's 
government?

> No, I just cannot agree with the bullshit sentiment that we should just
> obey their wish to commit suicide and take tons of people with them,
> many of them who would not want to die or get crippled for life. If they
> don't agree, then it's too bad for them. They don't have a say when we
> are talking about human life. Life takes priority over cultural
> bullshit.

And I cannot agree with the bullshit idea that because you say something 
is good for someone who doesn't know better, they should just submit and 
take it because you know better than they do.  Whether you /do/ actually 
know better than they do or not is irrelevant.

I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating 
something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human sacrifice) 
with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you know better 
than they do is not the same thing.

Since we're going for bullshit analogies, how about I just godwin the 
thread right now and say "I'm sure Hitler would agree with you.  After 
all, what he did to the Jews was for their own good."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to 
> take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or that 
> you know what you're talking about.

So what? Neither does an unconscious person. Would you refuse to save the
life of an unconscious person because they are unable to understand what
you are doing to them?

> > Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
> > engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

> Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for you 
> and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those are 
> even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.

Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a totalitarian
regime.

> I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating 
> something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human sacrifice) 
> with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you know better 
> than they do is not the same thing.

Please, by all means explain to me how giving a vaccine to someone, saving
their life, is imposing a totalitarian regime onto them. I would be
interested to hear.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:00:07 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to
>> take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or
>> that you know what you're talking about.
> 
> So what? Neither does an unconscious person. Would you refuse to save
> the life of an unconscious person because they are unable to understand
> what you are doing to them?

Different situation entirely, and you know it.

>> > Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that
>> > regularly engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to
>> > intervene?
> 
>> Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for
>> you and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those
>> are even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.
> 
> Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
> totalitarian regime.

It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump 
something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.

>> I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating
>> something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human
>> sacrifice) with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you
>> know better than they do is not the same thing.
> 
> Please, by all means explain to me how giving a vaccine to someone,
> saving their life, is imposing a totalitarian regime onto them. I would
> be interested to hear.

Have you ever tried to put yourself in someone else's shoes?  You should 
try it sometime.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
> > totalitarian regime.

> It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump 
> something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.

You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.

Or rather, you know what it means, but you are using it in the completely
wrong way just to attack some idea. Same thing as, for example, people
calling the occupy wallstreet protesters "anarchists" (even though the
movement couldn't possibly be more the opposite of anarchy.)

By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
Which makes absolutely no sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:

> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> Which makes absolutely no sense.

Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
Well done.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
>
> You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.

Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian 
regime. And whether or not  those injections are a good idea is a relatively 
minor point. The important point is that you can't put the genie back in the 
bottle--nor count on its staying a friendly genie, scott.

Post a reply to this message