Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Not much hope of that. With this move, the weak economy gets even weaker, so business revenue will drop yet again.
And the politicians get blamed, even though it is bad long-term business thinking that is doing the damage.
I live in Canada and I gotta say I've been very impressed with our health care system. It needs work but when I see the stories coming out of states it makes my blood boil.
On the topic of "papa" john, he's a giant piece of howbouthatswearfilteryeah!
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Unless all employers on the US work together to cut hours, the magic of the free market will make employers who offer full time jobs with benefits the preferred and competitive option and workers will choose them over crappy jobs who will continue to fight with the GOP to screw over workers in order to protect big business and rich people.
Offer crappy pay and no benefits, end up with crappy workers.
Objection your honor, it assumes facts not in evidence.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
It's the capitolist version of the old Soviet saw: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
On the other hand, pay me a living wage with reasonable benefits, and now you will see the hardworking, dedicated, problem solving side of me that crap jobs never do.
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
This.
There's nothing quite like being told you're unmotivated at your job by someone who earns twice what you do.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Vulcan wrote:It's the capitolist version of the old Soviet saw: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
On the other hand, pay me a living wage with reasonable benefits, and now you will see the hardworking, dedicated, problem solving side of me that crap jobs never do.
Sounds about right. I've always said that thinking pay starts at double minimum wage. Anything less is non-caffeinated, autopilot mode.
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Same. I just want a real one not the Obamacare fiasco we have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: Wait, you guys are in favor of universal healthcare so you supported Mitt Romney?
feth me, I can't even begin to understand you people.
Not me.
So, to sum up. We want Universal Healthcare.... but we aren't in favor of the ACA because it is not perfect and will not move us to Universal Healthcare, so I will support politicians, political parties, and political ideology opposed to the ACA. Even though those leaders, parties, and ideas are also opposed to Universal Healthcare.
Am I close, or am I missing something?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Vulcan wrote: It's the capitolist version of the old Soviet saw: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
On the other hand, pay me a living wage with reasonable benefits, and now you will see the hardworking, dedicated, problem solving side of me that crap jobs never do.
I found out recently that some of the people I work with earn twice or more what I do, but half less than half of my experience. Now, I know I'm a contractor, but that pretty much sent my brain into shutdown mode. No more busting my ass to solve complex issues they don't want to deal with, no more going above and beyond. You get my explicit contract work for exactly 40 hours a week, no more.
Vulcan wrote:It's the capitolist version of the old Soviet saw: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
On the other hand, pay me a living wage with reasonable benefits, and now you will see the hardworking, dedicated, problem solving side of me that crap jobs never do.
Sounds about right. I've always said that thinking pay starts at double minimum wage. Anything less is non-caffeinated, autopilot mode.
Quoted for truth. I had a mate going through a gakky IT job ask me why construction workers were payed so much better then he was. "Because in many of their jobs, in addition to being difficult, in poor conditions, and dangerous, they have to think to do their job instead of read a check list"
I haven't ever met a dumb welder who survived long in the trade
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Frazzled wrote: Objection your honor, it assumes facts not in evidence.
Hang on, so now you're questioning the idea of personal material incentive?
So, pretty much now you're even throwing classical economics out the window, if it means you get to continue moaning about healthcare reform?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Frazzled wrote: Objection your honor, it assumes facts not in evidence.
Hang on, so now you're questioning the idea of personal material incentive?
So, pretty much now you're even throwing classical economics out the window, if it means you get to continue moaning about healthcare reform?
Personal material incentive (hereafter referred to as "carrot on a stick") is worth being questioned as a base assumption, as there are both viewpoints and circumstances that decrease its value as a motivator.
For example:
1) if someone has more than enough money that they can buy happiness, how can you motivate them with more money? Their economic happiness exists independent of you.
2) if someone is motivated by a higher purpose, for example, many army recruits who enlist out of a sense of duty, rather than their soldier's pay. A quarterly bonus won't make them more combat effective.
3) if someone hold internal motivations, akin to a sense of arete. They will work for their own pride, and you money means little to them.
I could go on....
TL;DR: economics is called the "dismal science" because even when everything is correct on paper, it still finds a way to be wrong.
azazel the cat wrote: Personal material incentive (hereafter referred to as "carrot on a stick") is worth being questioned as a base assumption, as there are both viewpoints and circumstances that decrease its value as a motivator.
In a general sense you have a point – the profit motive is not the absolute guide. It is merely above and beyond all else the strongest determinant, and questioning that is just silly.
I mean, seriously, go start a company. Tell people you want skilled, experienced labour and that you’re paying minimum wage. See how many independently wealthy people apply. See how many people apply out of a sense of duty. See how many people apply out of internal motivations.
Then change that rate of pay to the market average, and see how many more applicants you get.
Now go back and read Fraz’s post, that I was replying to. See how he’s questioning the very idea that the market will offer more money and more benefits to attract employees. Then think about crazy that is.
TL;DR: economics is called the "dismal science" because even when everything is correct on paper, it still finds a way to be wrong.
No, it’s mostly because it suffers a scourge of political intervention and a mass of ‘self taught experts’ that not even evolution has to tolerate.
It is a shame that the response to that by many people such as yourself is to dismiss economics, instead of making the effort to look past the political and stupid noise, and to listen to the people who are actually educated in this stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/19 06:45:25
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
azazel the cat wrote: Personal material incentive (hereafter referred to as "carrot on a stick") is worth being questioned as a base assumption, as there are both viewpoints and circumstances that decrease its value as a motivator.
In a general sense you have a point – the profit motive is not the absolute guide. It is merely above and beyond all else the strongest determinant, and questioning that is just silly.
I mean, seriously, go start a company. Tell people you want skilled, experienced labour and that you’re paying minimum wage. See how many independently wealthy people apply. See how many people apply out of a sense of duty. See how many people apply out of internal motivations.
Then change that rate of pay to the market average, and see how many more applicants you get.
Now go back and read Fraz’s post, that I was replying to. See how he’s questioning the very idea that the market will offer more money and more benefits to attract employees. Then think about crazy that is.
TL;DR: economics is called the "dismal science" because even when everything is correct on paper, it still finds a way to be wrong.
No, it’s mostly because it suffers a scourge of political intervention and a mass of ‘self taught experts’ that not even evolution has to tolerate.
It is a shame that the response to that by many people such as yourself is to dismiss economics, instead of making the effort to look past the political and stupid noise, and to listen to the people who are actually educated in this stuff.
Please don't attempt to straw man me. I didn't dismiss economics; I dismissed the notion that economic principles shouldn't be questioned.
Because they are not laws, as I also demonstrated in the same post.
The failing of economics is that it's scope is so vast that interpretations are always subject to viewpoint based upon what information to include and exclude in any given analysis, and the core principles only truly apply in the vacuum of the Perfect Market, which is a self-defeating principle.
Long story short, I merely pointed out that it is worth questioning. I probably agree with you on 90% of your argument; just not necessarily for the same reasons.
azazel the cat wrote: Please don't attempt to straw man me. I didn't dismiss economics; I dismissed the notion that economic principles shouldn't be questioned.
Of course economic principles should be questioned, and more to the point specific economic arguments should be questioned. But they should be questioned with informed economic arguments.
[quote[Because they are not laws, as I also demonstrated in the same post.
Economics doesn't dictate, or need to dictate that its principles are laws. Instead it states that they are general principles that hold true in most circumstances. It then sets about studying exactly what circumstances they hold more or less true.
As such, the idea that offering more money will attract more candidates and a generally better candidate than offering less money is a very strong general principle, that will hold true in almost all circumstances.
The failing of economics is that it's scope is so vast that interpretations are always subject to viewpoint based upon what information to include and exclude in any given analysis, and the core principles only truly apply in the vacuum of the Perfect Market, which is a self-defeating principle.
Not really, no.
The perfect market is a descriptor for what an ideal market would look like, and how it would benefit all parties. No market can reach that point (and only a a scarce few get at all close), but economic concepts don't stop existing in imperfect markets. People will still take what they perceive to be the utility maximising choice, producers will still aim to maximise profits, and the market will still settle into equilibrium situations. It's just that the actions of individual parties are unlikely to produce the optimum situation as it would in a perfect market. This has all kinds of implications, mostly to do with the possible need for government involvement, but that's it.
Long story short, I merely pointed out that it is worth questioning.
But there is only value in questioning economic principles when you do so with informed economic arguments. Failing to do that contributes as much to the conversation as creationists contribute to the development of evolution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/20 03:22:32
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:Economics doesn't dictate, or need to dictate that its principles are laws. Instead it states that they are general principles that hold true in most circumstances. It then sets about studying exactly what circumstances they hold more or less true.
As such, the idea that offering more money will attract more candidates and a generally better candidate than offering less money is a very strong general principle, that will hold true in almost all circumstances.
"almost all circumstances" is the problem I have with this. I'll concede to "some" or even "most" if you qualify the circumstances, but not to "almost all". I'm merely trying to curb the hyperbolic language so that this can be a real discourse. The shame of it all is that as a general principle, I agree with you. However, my belief in the infallibility of that principle is nowhere near as stalwart as yours appears to be.
sebster wrote:The perfect market is a descriptor for what an ideal market would look like, and how it would benefit all parties. No market can reach that point (and only a a scarce few get at all close), but economic concepts don't stop existing in imperfect markets. People will still take what they perceive to be the utility maximising choice, producers will still aim to maximise profits, and the market will still settle into equilibrium situations. It's just that the actions of individual parties are unlikely to produce the optimum situation as it would in a perfect market. This has all kinds of implications, mostly to do with the possible need for government involvement, but that's it.
Now you need to set an operational definition of "utility", because you appear to be using a very rudimentary, patriarchal definition limited to monetary wealth. Were that the factual truth, the USA would have zero teachers, firefighters or policemen working in it, as most can make more performing easier jobs.
sebster wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Long story short, I merely pointed out that it is worth questioning.
But there is only value in questioning economic principles when you do so with informed economic arguments. Failing to do that contributes as much to the conversation as creationists contribute to the development of evolution.
Honestly, I expected better than this from you.
Which informed economic argument would you like me to make? Shall I take a Keynesian approach? What about Fordism? Marxist? Neoclassical? How about the Birmingham school? There mere presence of these myriad viewpoints on economics implies that the all important "why" question is far more subjective than what you're claiming it to be. As I said, the raw data may be objective, but the decisions on what raw data to use and what to disregard as unrelated is quite subjective. Economists don't like to admit it, but they're basically just the political science pundits of the finance department.
Oh, and believe it or not, Creationists do provide a contribution to the development of the evolution argument in much the same way an in-ring opponent contributes to the education of a boxer. If evolution had nobody attempting to punch holes in the threory, then the theory would not be as strong and well-tested as it is. Think of it like they're playing the Devil's advocate, except they aren't playing. Try not to confuse a Creationist questioning evolution with a Creationist deliberately trying to obfuscate the theory.
This is an off-topic digression, but there are basically no Creationists doing real research or providing contrary arguments, though. There are a few who pretend to be doing so, but most of the quasi-scientific claims floated by them are pure junk or long-since debunked. Giving them the metaphorical role of sparring partner vastly overstates how much they have to offer to dialogue or pursuit of truth.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
