Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 84 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694 ... LastLast
Results 6,226 to 6,300 of 8309
  1. #6226
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.

    Why all the rage against Person B and not A?
    Ex fucking actly.

    Banana won't admit it, but it's envy. He's pissed that he has to grind away his life to maintain his lifestyle, while I'm perfectly happy doing fuck all and living on a pittance. He hates the idea that someone can be happy like that but he can't.

    This, I do not believe, is conscious thought. It's pretty much how I felt when I worked, only I realised I didn't need to do it because I only need to support myself, and am happy with next to fuck all.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 03-22-2017 at 08:08 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #6227
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Hi, Gandalf.

    This is not correct.
    Yeah I mean you should know better. I'm trying to troll banana, and you're taking the bait. cmon dude. I thought my thermodynamics comment was enough to imply I knew I was talking out of my arse.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #6228
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah I mean you should know better. I'm trying to troll banana, and you're taking the bait. cmon dude. I thought my thermodynamics comment was enough to imply I knew I was talking out of my arse.
    Figured. But I really wanted to call you Gandalf.
  4. #6229
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.

    Why all the rage against Person B and not A?
    The rage probably should not be against Person B. There is a moral argument to be made regarding trying to convince people to not take advantage of things they "shouldn't", but I don't have a coherent view on that so I won't comment.

    What we should rage at is the policy. Person A's behavior is productive for society and Person B's behavior is counterproductive. If what we don't like is the inequity represented by the difference between Persons A and B, we're in luck that a better way to create greater equity in aggregate is to let Person A behave in the proposed way if so desired while not aiding Person B in behaving in the proposed way.
  5. #6230
    Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.

    Why all the rage against Person B and not A?
    What about Person C, who works, pays taxes, and makes a modest living. His living could be slightly more than modest if the government didn't take his tax dollars and give them to Person B.

    So person C gets penalized for Person B's laziness. That's rage inducing

    Person A is only mooching off of daddy. He's not victimizing person C

    And what about person D? He doesn't work because he got his shins blown off in Vietnam. He relies on government benefits for his entire livelihood. He doen't have the option of getting a job to earn more money or provide a better living for himself. He's getting less money than he could if Person B got off his lazy fucking ass.

    It's like if Person B parked in a handicapped parking space because it was easier for him, but it means that Mr. No-Shins has to walk a little further. That's supremely douche-y. How is it different if you swap money for parking spaces?? It's not. It's still douche-y
  6. #6231
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Figured. But I really wanted to call you Gandalf.
    It's a wated joke on me. I haven't watched the Oh Lord My Ring films, so I have no idea why you feel that name is appropriate to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #6232
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The rage probably should not be against Person B. There is a moral argument to be made regarding trying to convince people to not take advantage of things they "shouldn't", but I don't have a coherent view on that so I won't comment.

    What we should rage at is the policy. Person A's behavior is productive for society and Person B's behavior is counterproductive. If what we don't like is the inequity represented by the difference between Persons A and B, we're in luck that a better way to create greater equity in aggregate is to let Person A behave in the proposed way if so desired while not aiding Person B in behaving in the proposed way.
    But what the fuck are you saying? It's OK to be lazy if you are born rich, but not if you are poor?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  8. #6233
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What about Person C, who works, pays taxes, and makes a modest living. His living could be slightly more than modest if the government didn't take his tax dollars and give them to Person B.


    So person C gets penalized for Person B's laziness. That's rage inducing


    Person A is only mooching off of daddy. He's not victimizing person C


    And what about person D? He doesn't work because he got his shins blown off in Vietnam. He relies on government benefits for his entire livelihood. He doen't have the option of getting a job to earn more money or provide a better living for himself. He's getting less money than he could if Person B got off his lazy fucking ass.


    It's like if Person B parked in a handicapped parking space because it was easier for him, but it means that Mr. No-Shins has to walk a little further. That's supremely douche-y. How is it different if you swap money for parking spaces?? It's not. It's still douche-y

    LOL, again you are strawmanning, by literally introducing a third and fourth person in the hypothetical situation to argue against
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  9. #6234
    How about person E, who spends his life smoking weed, talking shit on the internet, at taxpayer's expense, then one day he debunks the accelerating universe theory? Had person E got off his lazy ass and got a job, he wouldn't have time to smoke at 1am, talking bollocks, and the rest of the world would still live in the deluded belief that we live in the dark energy era.

    You should show more respect to the unemployed. Sometimes they do something useful, thanks to the time they had. Take that silly cow who wrote the Harry Potter books. If she got off her lazy ass and got a proper job instead of chasing her dreams writing about wizards while lying to the jobcentre about how she spends her time, then all those children wouldn't have grown up without that specky geek flying on a broom. Just imagine if that world was real.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #6235
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    But what the fuck are you saying? It's OK to be lazy if you are born rich, but not if you are poor?
    I don't think that you think that's what I said.
  11. #6236
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How about person E, who spends his life smoking weed, talking shit on the internet, at taxpayer's expense, then one day he debunks the accelerating universe theory? Had person E got off his lazy ass and got a job, he wouldn't have time to smoke at 1am, talking bollocks, and the rest of the world would still live in the deluded belief that we live in the dark energy era.

    You should show more respect to the unemployed. Sometimes they do something useful, thanks to the time they had. Take that silly cow who wrote the Harry Potter books. If she got off her lazy ass and got a proper job instead of chasing her dreams writing about wizards while lying to the jobcentre about how she spends her time, then all those children wouldn't have grown up without that specky geek flying on a broom. Just imagine if that world was real.
    Does this mean that subsidizing unproductive behavior is productive?
  12. #6237
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Does this mean that subsidizing unproductive behavior is productive?
    Well JK Rowling's behaviour wasn't unproductive. Subsidising the unemployed can be productive. Probably more productive than forcing them into work and expecting them to provide more value to the employer than their wage is worth.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #6238
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well JK Rowling's behaviour wasn't unproductive. Subsidising the unemployed can be productive. Probably more productive than forcing them into work and expecting them to provide more value to the employer than their wage is worth.
    How is not paying somebody to not work forcing them to work?

    Do you know that wages are set quite robustly based on the value to both employee and employer?
  14. #6239
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't think that you think that's what I said.
    Which is why I asked you what the fuck you were saying.

    So, what were you saying?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  15. #6240
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Person A's behavior is productive for society.
    Person A's behavior is exactly the same as Person B's; they don't produce a fucking thing. The only difference is the former won the lottery in terms of inheritance.
  16. #6241
    https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/ne...re-in-turmoil/

    I'll take a democrat vote at 19-1
    And I'll take the over on Republicans who vote against (15)

    I'd also like to bet heavily on "ryancare" being the name
  17. #6242
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do you know that wages are set quite robustly based on the value to both employee and employer?
    Do you suppose someone who doesn't want to do a job will do as productive a job as someone who does want the job?

    Given the answer to that question, do you then suppose that two different employees provide the same value to their employer?

    Further, is there a critical point where the money an employee is paid is worth more than the value they provide?

    How many people do you suppose do less that the minimum required amount of work to reach this critical point?

    The wage an employer is prepared to pay is related to the value the employer anticipates. That might not equal the value the employee actually provides. The employer might not even have the means to calculate the value the employee provides. The employer can be less productive a business if they employ useless staff.

    The point is... from an individual company's point of view, some people are better off out of the workforce. This is easy to imagine by asking yourself... would you employ someone who doesn't want the job? Not if you can help it, because you know it will affect your profits. Thus, it's a net loss to your business, and thus the greater economy.

    Now, is that loss to the economy worth more than employment benefits? Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question. But still, if I'm an employer, I don't want to employ people like me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #6243
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you suppose someone who doesn't want to do a job will do as productive a job as someone who does want the job?
    Yes, absolutely. Assuming we're talking about entry level and/or unskilled labor jobs, then yes, for the most part productivity is uniform across all human beings. Like how bad could you possibly be at scooping ice cream?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    do you then suppose that two different employees provide the same value to their employer?
    In many many many cases yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    is there a critical point where the money an employee is paid is worth more than the value they provide?
    Not really. And if so, it's the company's problem. Better equipment, more training, or sometimes just better leadership can solve this problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The wage an employer is prepared to pay is related to the value the employer anticipates. That might not equal the value the employee actually provides. The employer might not even have the means to calculate the value the employee provides. The employer can be less productive a business if they employ useless staff.
    Dude, it's 2017! There are entire fields of business study dedicated to the management and motivation of people. Of course companies can measure the value of their employee's work.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The point is... from an individual company's point of view, some people are better off out of the workforce..
    You keep saying this, and it seems more and more like you're trying to convince yourself, rather than us. You're going a little too far out of your way to deny feeling guilty about your own sloth. It's pretty transparent at this point.

    If someone is truly a detriment to an employer, then it's because of conscious decisions that they made to be a fuck-up on purpose. Lateness, no-shows, insubordination, being drunk at work.....shit like that is totally within every able-bodied, able-minded person's control. If you choose to be that way, fine. I guess everyone has a right to be an ass-hole. I don't see why non-ass holes have to pay for it though.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is easy to imagine by asking yourself... would you employ someone who doesn't want the job?
    Dude, this happens hundreds of millions of times around the world every single day!! How many people really LOOOOOOOOOOOVE their jobs? How many people are at work right now but would rather be doing something else? Employing 'someone who doesn't want the job' is a simple reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Now, is that loss to the economy worth more than employment benefits?.
    Not even close

    What did you say you were getting in benefits? $600/week? Explain to me how in the world you could fuck up a job bad enough to cost the entire economy that much money.

    Your wages don't count in the cost either. You're getting paid one way or the other. Now explain to me why it's cheaper to pay you to stay home rather than have you do something productive.
  19. #6244
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    The only reason to dislike person A is envy.
  20. #6245
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    Like how bad could you possibly be at scooping ice cream?
    Not as good as a pretty lady with lovely pert breasts. Not even as good as someone who looks exactly like me, except smiles more when at work. The idea that our value is uniform, even in shit jobs, is very much wrong.

    Dude, it's 2017! There are entire fields of business study dedicated to the management and motivation of people. Of course companies can measure the value of their employee's work.
    Right, how much is a smiling memeber of staff worth compared to one who doesn't smile? I want an actual cash value here.

    You keep saying this, and it seems more and more like you're trying to convince yourself, rather than us.
    You keep saying this, like you're trying to convince me that I'm trying to convince myself, rather than discussing my ideas.

    If someone is truly a detriment to an employer, then it's because of conscious decisions that they made to be a fuck-up on purpose.
    Possibly. In the case of literally doing a shit job, sure. In the case of failing to greet customers with a warm smile, well that isn't conscious. You're assuming "doing a shit job" is a matter of poor tequnique. I'm assuming it has a wider meaning than that.

    How many people are at work right now but would rather be doing something else? Employing 'someone who doesn't want the job' is a simple reality.
    Lots, and to different degrees. It's not binary, it's not a one or zero. My friend doesn't want to work, he likes his weekends a lot. But he enjoys his work, because it provides him with a house, a car, a happy wife, a comfortable existence free of financial stress. That, to him, is worth more than his weekends. So while he might "want" the day off, he also "wants" the things that work provides him, and this "want" is greater.

    The incentive to work exists. But you can never incentivise everyone. Why should those who are not incentivised go ahead and do it?

    Your wages don't count in the cost either. You're getting paid one way or the other. Now explain to me why it's cheaper to pay you to stay home rather than have you do something productive.
    Because if the employer paid someone else the same wage to do the same job, the other person will very likely do a better job than I will. At the very least, they would be more likely to hold down the job.

    $600/week?
    lol no wonder you have such a problem with benefits, if you think this is how much money people get.

    It's around £500 a month, so $625 a month. Now, considering my friend earns his company an average of £750 a day, and is paid around £100 a day, I can see how productivity is potentially worth a lot more than the pittance I survive on.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #6246
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    The only reason to dislike person A is envy.
    Yeah, the key word being "dislike". It's one thing to morally object to empoyment benefits, but to show contempt for those who take advantage demonstrates something more. I object to MP's claiming for their breakfasts. That said, when an MP does it, I blame the system that allows him to, not the MP himself. So long as he's acting within the law, then if there's a problem with his actions, the problem is the law.

    banana has a problem with me and jimmy. Rather than thinking "well you're not actually doing anything wrong, just something I morally object to, and morality is subjective", he tries to make us feel bad for doing something which is within the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #6247
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Now, considering my friend earns his company an average of £750 a day, and is paid around £100 a day, I can see how productivity is potentially worth a lot more than the pittance I survive on.
    This is a very false way of looking at things.

    Also why are you trying to justify your lifestyle to others? Who gives a fuck if people think it's wrong if you have the means to do something do it. I highly doubt it's anywhere close to optimal for your own life but the same could be said of almost everyone.
  23. #6248
    Quote Originally Posted by savy
    Also why are you trying to justify your lifestyle to others?
    lol you're asking me why I'm sitting here typing words? Because it's fun.

    This is a very false way of looking at things.
    Why? My friend works on sales for a printer company. It is very easy to quantify his value relative to wage, because there is a record of what he has sold, what it cost the company etc. He earns the company so much because he has become very efficient at listing stock on ebay.

    Let's say he leaves and they replace him with me. Even if I can only earn the company £500 a day, I'm still a valuable employee, but I'm doing a shitter job than my friend. It's unreasonable to think I can walk into that job and immediately be as efficient as my friend. It's arguably unreasonable to assume I'll ever be that efficient, because I am not as motivated as him to work hard. So if I'm earning £500 a day for the company, I can still sit there and think "I'm doing a fine job" while having no incentive to work harder. My friend has that incentive because a) he needs to keep the job, and b) he enjoys working more than me, and c) he takes pride in his work.

    Therefore, my friend is a much more valuable employee than I am, even if I myself am productive.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #6249
    I wasn't so much saying in terms of you replacing that person but in that it seemed to me that you were saying he should be earning more based on how much he was earning for that company. You clearly realise this, if not it's implications which you also probably do.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    lol you're asking me why I'm sitting here typing words? Because it's fun.
    I just find it strange that people exploiting things at a higher level is kind of an inbuilt joke, like everyone's mileage claims are more than they really are and hahaha business joke. Yet the lower end isn't.
    Last edited by Savy; 03-23-2017 at 10:20 AM.
  25. #6250
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I wasn't so much saying in terms of you replacing that person but in that it seemed to me that you were saying he should be earning more based on how much he was earning for that company. You clearly realise this, if not it's implications which you also probably do.
    Well even if they're paying him more, he can still provide more value than I could on a lower wage. Easily.

    If they pay him £100 a day to earn £750, then the company profits £650.

    If they pay me £50 a day to earn £500, the compnay profits £450.

    That's £200 of lost productivity.

    Unemployed, I'm being paid around £17 a day.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #6251
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well even if they're paying him more, he can still provide more value than I could on a lower wage. Easily.

    If they pay him £100 a day to earn £750, then the company profits £650.

    If they pay me £50 a day to earn £500, the compnay profits £450.

    That's £200 of lost productivity.
    This illustrates why it's obvious that you have no idea what your'e talking about. You should seriously shut the fuck up because all you're doing is trying to pass off steaming dog-shit as savvy business analytics. No one is buying it.

    Look at the numbers you just posted. In that scenario, YOU are providing more value than your friend. Your cost is 10% of the revenue you generate. YOur friend's cost is 13.3%.

    Instead of paying your friend, the company could pay TWO people like you and make 1000 in profit off of the same 100 they would have paid your friend.

    Do you get it now? Do you see why your argument of "my laziness costs too much money" is bullshit?
  27. #6252
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Instead of paying your friend, the company could pay TWO people like you and make 1000 in profit off of the same 100 they would have paid your friend.
    Why would you make this assumption? In general it just isn't true.
  28. #6253
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Why would you make this assumption? In general it just isn't true.
    Of course it is you fucking idiot.
  29. #6254
    Sorry I forgot you're an idiot.

    I could come up with an idea that I can sell to someone that makes them a living, of the money they earn I will charge £1 a day. Apply this to a million people and I'm pretty financially sound.
  30. #6255
    Why doesn't every company earning money just do more of what they are doing? This is more money.

    I don't understand.
  31. #6256
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I could come up with an idea that I can sell to someone that makes them a living, of the money they earn I will charge £1 a day. Apply this to a million people and I'm pretty financially sound.
    What the fuck does that have to do with Ong's printer sales job?
  32. #6257
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Why doesn't every company earning money just do more of what they are doing? This is more money. .
    That's pretty much what they're all trying to do, every day.

    It doesn't always work because sometimes there are obstacles. For example, how would this company attract Ong to the position when he's getting paid to sit on his ass? Also, maybe the company doesn't have very good access to new capital. That's what happens alot when taxes are high. And taxes are high because the gov't needs money to pay for Ong to sit on his ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I don't understand.
    Cause you're fucking dumb
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-23-2017 at 11:02 AM.
  33. #6258
    Why are they trying to do it? Just do it. That's what you said, there is nothing to try.
  34. #6259
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Why are they trying to do it? Just do it. That's what you said, there is nothing to try.
    I edited the post to explain it more detail so your feeble brain could comprehend.

    Big government bureaucracy and generous taxpayer funded entitlements stifle business growth.

    Plus, they already do. When companies find they can replace a high-cost employee with more lower-cost employees....they do it. Just because they didn't send a press release to your house doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
  35. #6260
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This illustrates why it's obvious that you have no idea what your'e talking about.
    It's like you only just realised this.

    You should seriously shut the fuck up because all you're doing is trying to pass off steaming dog-shit as savvy business analytics. No one is buying it.
    No I won't stfu because that's boring. Anyone who thinks my comments are an attempt at savvy business analytics is more stupid than you think I am. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't give a flying fuck if my comments fall apart upon analysis, I've never pretended to be a savvy buiness analyst. It's your dumb assumptions that lead you to think that's why I'm talking about this shit.

    It should already be obvious to you when I say that my net cost to the taxpayer is zero that I'm basically just taking an opposing view to whatever you have to say, and running with it.

    Fuck it, I'll break it to you now. I'm not really unemployed. My "friend" who earns £750 a day for his employer selling printer parts on ebay? That's me. I just decided to take jimmy's side on the unemployment thing, and got carried away.

    Don't take people at face value on the internet.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #6261
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I edited the post to explain it more detail so your feeble brain could comprehend.

    Big government bureaucracy and generous taxpayer funded entitlements stifle business growth.
    In a completely free market what you're saying is still not true in general. What you're implying would actually mean that tax wouldn't play an issue at all unless it was 100% because infinite growth avoids all those issues.
  37. #6262
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fuck it, I'll break it to you now. I'm not really unemployed. My "friend" who earns £750 a day for his employer selling printer parts on ebay? That's me.
    Better get your ass to work then. Seems your employer can replace you with two cheaper shit-heads at any moment.
  38. #6263
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Fuck it, I'll break it to you now. I'm not really unemployed. My "friend" who earns £750 a day for his employer selling printer parts on ebay? That's me. I just decided to take jimmy's side on the unemployment thing, and got carried away.
    Hook me up with some free toner?
  39. #6264
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    In a completely free market what you're saying is still not true in general. What you're implying would actually mean that tax wouldn't play an issue at all unless it was 100% because infinite growth avoids all those issues.
    I'm genuinely sorry for your affliction, it must be tough going through life hopelessly retarded.

    Taxes impact access to capital. Access to capital impacts business growth.

    Go chew on that for a while professor, and get back to me.
  40. #6265
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Better get your ass to work then. Seems your employer can replace you with two cheaper shit-heads at any moment.
    He'd have to pay more than fifty quid a day. That's less than minimum wage for an 8 hour shift.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #6266
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Hook me up with some free toner?
    Might be able to get you some cheap. I'll need to talk to my friend.

    Shit I mean employer.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #6267
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm genuinely sorry for your affliction, it must be tough going through life hopelessly retarded.

    Taxes impact access to capital. Access to capital impacts business growth.

    Go chew on that for a while professor, and get back to me.
    This is the problem with stupid people they can't follow assumptions through.
  43. #6268
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Which is why I asked you what the fuck you were saying.

    So, what were you saying?
    That paying somebody to be unproductive is a bad idea.
  44. #6269
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Person A's behavior is exactly the same as Person B's; they don't produce a fucking thing. The only difference is the former won the lottery in terms of inheritance.
    Person A produces a ton just by existing. The wealth the person's parents created is real, and the proceeds Person A possesses represent that real wealth. That real wealth is mostly being used as capital in financial markets to fund others' productive endeavors.

    Person B* is diminishing the amount of real wealth in the economy by merely consuming (this reduces supply of resources) by using others' real wealth that would otherwise be more productive. Furthermore, a society in which the Person A situation is discouraged and the Person B situation is encouraged is one that significantly incentivizes not developing wealth and not being productive.

    *More specifically, the diminishing of real wealth is coming from the government policy that takes from Persons A-Z and redistributes in an unproductive manner.
  45. #6270
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you suppose someone who doesn't want to do a job will do as productive a job as someone who does want the job?

    Given the answer to that question, do you then suppose that two different employees provide the same value to their employer?

    Further, is there a critical point where the money an employee is paid is worth more than the value they provide?

    How many people do you suppose do less that the minimum required amount of work to reach this critical point?

    The wage an employer is prepared to pay is related to the value the employer anticipates. That might not equal the value the employee actually provides. The employer might not even have the means to calculate the value the employee provides. The employer can be less productive a business if they employ useless staff.

    The point is... from an individual company's point of view, some people are better off out of the workforce. This is easy to imagine by asking yourself... would you employ someone who doesn't want the job? Not if you can help it, because you know it will affect your profits. Thus, it's a net loss to your business, and thus the greater economy.

    Now, is that loss to the economy worth more than employment benefits? Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question. But still, if I'm an employer, I don't want to employ people like me.
    The economic concepts we're dealing with are in aggregation. The setting of wages where what the employers and employees value equal doesn't happen perfectly on the individual firm level but does happen at the market level. I'm not sure how much headway we're gonna make on this, in part because it involves the utility theory discussed on this board a while back that does not go over well. Just know that it's at the backbone of microeconomics and assumed as given in the labor economics subfield.

    A way of looking at it is that when a person sells his labor, he ONLY does so when it provides him equal or greater utility* than not doing so. The same goes for those who purchase labor.

    *Recall that "utility" means "happiness" and is probably best thought of as "better-offness" or "preferredness".
  46. #6271
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That paying somebody to be unproductive is a bad idea.
    Ok, let me go over old ground with you, because you're not emotional when it comes to these things.

    What do you think would happen if unemployment benefits ceased to exist? Do you think it would result in a net gain, or net loss, for the taxpayer?

    I make the assumption that most long term unemployed people are so for a reason... I call it unemployability. They can't hold down jobs, maybe because they're useless, stupid, untrustworthy, or unable to work with other people, amongst other reasons. These people still need to eat, they still need shelter. If society does not provide this, what happens?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #6272
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    These people still need to eat, they still need shelter. If society does not provide this, what happens?
    They can go find a society that does......in Europe
  48. #6273
    Standing O from a caucus that told you to suck it last week. https://twitter.com/CSims45/status/8...407041/photo/1
  49. #6274
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Now, considering my friend earns his company an average of £750 a day, and is paid around £100 a day, I can see how productivity is potentially worth a lot more than the pittance I survive on.
    If there truly is a noticeable difference and he doesn't work for a monopsony for his labor type (very unlikely that he does), then he could VERY easily get paid more. In fact, almost all of the time, he won't even have to seek a higher income (by asking his boss or by applying elsewhere) because it actually costs employers to not pay their employees what their worth.
  50. #6275
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    They can go find a society that does......in Europe
    lol dumb emotion
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #6276
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If there truly is a noticeable difference and he doesn't work for a monopsony for his labor type (very unlikely that he does), then he could VERY easily get paid more. In fact, almost all of the time, he won't even have to seek a higher income (by asking his boss or by applying elsewhere) because it actually costs employers to not pay their employees what their worth.
    You live in theory too much.

    I'm sure there is a huge branch of economics that deals with how bad this happens IRL.
  52. #6277
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If there truly is a noticeable difference and he doesn't work for a monopsony for his labor type (very unlikely that he does), then he could VERY easily get paid more. In fact, almost all of the time, he won't even have to seek a higher income (by asking his boss or by applying elsewhere) because it actually costs employers to not pay their employees what their worth.
    He's recently had a raise and is edging his way deeper into ownership of the business. He's set for an early retirement if he keeps on the way he is. I think his employer recognise his value and are ensuring he is properly comepnsated for his labour, though I can only say that with confidence based on my friend's happiness.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #6278
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Why doesn't every company earning money just do more of what they are doing? This is more money.

    I don't understand.
    One reason is that there's quite a bit adverse selection (a type of asymmetric information).
  54. #6279
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, let me go over old ground with you, because you're not emotional when it comes to these things.

    What do you think would happen if unemployment benefits ceased to exist? Do you think it would result in a net gain, or net loss, for the taxpayer?

    I make the assumption that most long term unemployed people are so for a reason... I call it unemployability. They can't hold down jobs, maybe because they're useless, stupid, untrustworthy, or unable to work with other people, amongst other reasons. These people still need to eat, they still need shelter. If society does not provide this, what happens?
    If we assume all the unemployed are unemployable, you would be right. What we have seen with regards to how employment changes based on recessions and labor reforms, by large majority, most of the unemployed when the rate is not very low are not unemployable.
  55. #6280
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You live in theory too much.

    I'm sure there is a huge branch of economics that deals with how bad this happens IRL.
    Isn't just theory. It's what we see in the real world.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 03-23-2017 at 01:06 PM.
  56. #6281
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Person A produces a ton just by existing. The wealth the person's parents created is real, and the proceeds Person A possesses represent that real wealth. That real wealth is mostly being used as capital in financial markets to fund others' productive endeavors.

    Person B* is diminishing the amount of real wealth in the economy by merely consuming (this reduces supply of resources) by using others' real wealth that would otherwise be more productive. Furthermore, a society in which the Person A situation is discouraged and the Person B situation is encouraged is one that significantly incentivizes not developing wealth and not being productive.

    *More specifically, the diminishing of real wealth is coming from the government policy that takes from Persons A-Z and redistributes in an unproductive manner.

    So someone who wins the lottery and does no other work the rest of their life is a contributing member of the economy just by sheer luck? Gtfo.
  57. #6282
    If you all need to have to make a substantial contribution to the economy is a lot of money we could just give every homeless person $10m and let them blossom.
  58. #6283
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Isn't just theory. It's what we see in the real world.
    Theory is a real thing I'm not saying that it doesn't happen I'm just saying it's much more imperfect than you make out. Maybe this is my fault, people like to dismiss theory, I don't.
  59. #6284
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So someone who wins the lottery and does no other work the rest of their life is a contributing member of the economy just by sheer luck? Gtfo.
    What do you suppose the proceeds do?
  60. #6285
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So someone who wins the lottery and does no other work the rest of their life is a contributing member of the economy just by sheer luck? Gtfo.
    It should be noted that the existence of lottery isn't necessarily contributory to the economy (it could be, but not in any direct way anybody knows much about). But that's a different topic.
  61. #6286
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Theory is a real thing I'm not saying that it doesn't happen I'm just saying it's much more imperfect than you make out. Maybe this is my fault, people like to dismiss theory, I don't.
    It certainly is imperfect.
  62. #6287
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If you all need to have to make a substantial contribution to the economy is a lot of money we could just give every homeless person $10m and let them blossom.
    Are you trying to understand my point?
  63. #6288
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Are you trying to understand my point?
    You said that Person A is contributing by just existing, which I interpret to mean that anyone can contribute by spending money regardless of whether they earned it or not, as this was the case for both Persons A and B.

    My argument is that Person A is doing no more or less than Person B in directly producing no goods or services for the economy; the only contribution they make is by buying things. And if that were the only requirement for contributing to the economy then Person B must have the same effect, albeit to a lesser extent.
  64. #6289
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You said that Person A is contributing by just existing, which I interpret to mean that anyone can contribute by spending money regardless of whether they earned it or not, as this was the case for both Persons A and B.

    My argument is that Person A is doing no more or less than Person B in directly producing no goods or services for the economy; the only contribution they make is by buying things. And if that were the only requirement for contributing to the economy then Person B must have the same effect, albeit to a lesser extent.
    Person A's contribution by existing is due to his wealth being real. Your proposal is nominal and some other stuff. If Person A has 10m of real wealth sitting in a bank, it's doing good for the economy. Its most notable impact is probably that it acts as investment capital. If instead it's all consumed, well that's fine too because it's real. In your proposal, the change in income is not real; instead it's inflation. It won't boost the real economy and the situation includes some other stuff that is not good.
  65. #6290
    If you are proposing that 10m given to each homeless person is real, that's even less productive than if it's inflation.
  66. #6291
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If we assume all the unemployed are unemployable, you would be right. What we have seen with regards to how employment changes based on recessions and labor reforms, by large majority, most of the unemployed when the rate is not very low are not unemployable.
    This is why I draw a distinction between "unemployed" and "long term unemployed". Most unemployed people are employable, also most unemployed people want a job. I'm talking about the minority who have no intention of working.

    I think even banana is happy with a benefit that keeps people afloat between jobs. The "safety net".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #6292
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is why I draw a distinction between "unemployed" and "long term unemployed". Most unemployed people are employable, also most unemployed people want a job. I'm talking about the minority who have no intention of working.
    Most of those are people like stay-at-home moms with children and disabled. Most that don't have jobs because they get enough welfare to be happy enough to not work would work if they didn't get the welfare.

    I think even banana is happy with a benefit that keeps people afloat between jobs. The "safety net".
    One of the main reasons for difficulty in-between jobs is the existence of the safety net in the first place. It disincentivizes savings and other smart behavior. Unemployment insurance is a good thing when the policyholder pays for it.
  68. #6293
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Person A's contribution by existing is due to his wealth being real. Your proposal is nominal and some other stuff. If Person A has 10m of real wealth sitting in a bank, it's doing good for the economy. Its most notable impact is probably that it acts as investment capital. If instead it's all consumed, well that's fine too because it's real. In your proposal, the change in income is not real; instead it's inflation. It won't boost the real economy and the situation includes some other stuff that is not good.
    My point is that the money is only tied to him through his good fortune.

    If Ong found $10m on the beach while looking for washed up coke shipments, or, found a winning $10m lottery ticket, or, found out a long lost relative had bequeathed him $10m, then according to your argument he'd be the same as Person A - i.e., he'd be contributing to the economy just by possessing the money. Then suddenly he'd be getting instant respect. Surely you see how this doesn't make sense.
  69. #6294
    It makes perfect sense. You're just getting mad over moral stuff.
  70. #6295
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    It makes perfect sense. You're just getting mad over moral stuff.
    Explain how it makes sense.
  71. #6296
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    My point is that the money is only tied to him through his good fortune.

    If Ong found $10m on the beach while looking for washed up coke shipments, or, found a winning $10m lottery ticket, or, found out a long lost relative had bequeathed him $10m, then according to your argument he'd be the same as Person A - i.e., he'd be contributing to the economy just by possessing the money. Then suddenly he'd be getting instant respect. Surely you see how this doesn't make sense.
    It's not so much he who is contributing to the economy, but the capital. Since he is the one who has it, his behavior of letting it sit in the bank is contributory to the economy. There are things he could do that would be more contributory and things he could do that would be negative. Somebody who has money can sit on it and he is contributing more to the economy than somebody who is given money for the purpose of sitting on it.
  72. #6297
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You're just getting mad over moral stuff.
    Actually the only moral argument I've heard ITT is that he's a flawed individual because he doesn't work for his money. My question is if someone else doesn't work for their money also, but has a lot more of it, why aren't you outraged about that?
  73. #6298
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Explain how it makes sense.
    Person A and Person B are the same except one is contributing money to the economy in that they have it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Actually the only moral argument I've heard ITT is that he's a flawed individual because he doesn't work for his money. My question is if someone else doesn't work for their money also, but has a lot more of it, why aren't you outraged about that?
    I'm not outraged by any of it. I don't really care what person A through Z do with their lives. When I say you're mad about the morality of it I moreso mean people having a problem with one person but not the other. I don't think what has been said is any justification of that liking.
    Last edited by Savy; 03-23-2017 at 03:56 PM.
  74. #6299
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's not so much he who is contributing to the economy, but the capital.
    ok, then let's go back to my original question:

    Person A does nothing but has lots of money. Person B does nothing but has little money. Why are people indignant about Person B and not A? Morally, they are equivalent.
  75. #6300
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post

    I'm not outraged by any of it. I don't really care what person A through Z do with their lives.
    Ooooh, don't make me dig up some post where you slagged Ong for being on benefits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •