>> 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