Post: #26

(08-02-2015 04:43 AM)Metal Wrote:  This reminds me of the UK.

I am a professional engineer and I see unemployed people with not too dissimilar lives to me.

It undermines the incentive to work and to do a good job. I'm just doing this until I can move somewhere that pays.

What sector are you in?

You would do well in energy and infrastructure such as oil. The feckless get 30k a year or more if they know how to hustle.

Post: #27

fucking stupid !

he is now paying the price for being unproductive (taking fucking stupid decisions)

Post: #28

(08-02-2015 06:25 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 04:43 AM)Metal Wrote:  This reminds me of the UK.

I am a professional engineer and I see unemployed people with not too dissimilar lives to me.

It undermines the incentive to work and to do a good job. I'm just doing this until I can move somewhere that pays.

What sector are you in?

You would do well in energy and infrastructure such as oil. The feckless get 30k a year or more if they know how to hustle.

I work in pipeline engineering. I am considered in a sort of junior position, but in time I will make some decent money. Still I think poor people and people who dont work should be really poor and suffer a bit.

Redistribution of wealth is essentially designed to undermine the power of men. If these systems didn't exist a man with a good job would have a much higher standard of living and be highly desirable by women.

Instead I am competing with single mums who use the money taxed off me to compete with me for housing and not to mention they are now undesirable to me as partners with their bastard offspring.

The question is what came first, the single mother and then the benefits or the benefits and then the single mum. I have a strong belief the benefits incentivised these women to take that route and their population will grow over time. Needless to say I intend to expat.

Post: #29

Who is John Galt?

Post: #30

^
   

Post: #31

It's like a real-life version of this story (which is fake)

Quote:An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little ...

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

Post: #32

The work 'experiment' at gravity failed because there were no incentives. If he paid everyone 70k and then had the opportunity for bonuses relevant to each position I bet those two would have maxed out the bonuses and stayed.

The crews we ran in forestry camps all were piece rate, ie. you get paid for what you produce and it was amazing to see the variation in people. The hippies only worked hard enough to have beer money and some really intense people with firm monetary goals set their watch to time their production.

The only time I've seen this expanded was with a panel board factory that used 'production teams' the production teams got paid a base rate and then above that was based on what they produced. There were teams of 5 and they were almost autonomous units, they were part of the interview/process and could also fire members from their teams. So, teams that were super high production lunatics hired like people to work on their team, and teams that were taking it easy, work just enough also hired the same type to their teams.

It is/was an amazing model because slackers couldn't hide in the crowd, if you were dragging your team down, they all knew it and you were costing them money...so they would self correct very fast.

Post: #33

(08-02-2015 11:24 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  The work 'experiment' at gravity failed because there were no incentives. If he paid everyone 70k and then had the opportunity for bonuses relevant to each position I bet those two would have maxed out the bonuses and stayed.

The crews we ran in forestry camps all were piece rate, ie. you get paid for what you produce and it was amazing to see the variation in people. The hippies only worked hard enough to have beer money and some really intense people with firm monetary goals set their watch to time their production.

The only time I've seen this expanded was with a panel board factory that used 'production teams' the production teams got paid a base rate and then above that was based on what they produced. There were teams of 5 and they were almost autonomous units, they were part of the interview/process and could also fire members from their teams. So, teams that were super high production lunatics hired like people to work on their team, and teams that were taking it easy, work just enough also hired the same type to their teams.

It is/was an amazing model because slackers couldn't hide in the crowd, if you were dragging your team down, they all knew it and you were costing them money...so they would self correct very fast.

Now imagine that, if you fired them, you still had to pay them - and provide food, housing, free healthcare and a cell phone - and were never thanked, but vilified as greedy for wanting to keep the money you worked for.

Post: #34

(08-02-2015 11:24 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  The work 'experiment' at gravity failed because there were no incentives. If he paid everyone 70k and then had the opportunity for bonuses relevant to each position I bet those two would have maxed out the bonuses and stayed.

The crews we ran in forestry camps all were piece rate, ie. you get paid for what you produce and it was amazing to see the variation in people. The hippies only worked hard enough to have beer money and some really intense people with firm monetary goals set their watch to time their production.

The only time I've seen this expanded was with a panel board factory that used 'production teams' the production teams got paid a base rate and then above that was based on what they produced. There were teams of 5 and they were almost autonomous units, they were part of the interview/process and could also fire members from their teams. So, teams that were super high production lunatics hired like people to work on their team, and teams that were taking it easy, work just enough also hired the same type to their teams.

It is/was an amazing model because slackers couldn't hide in the crowd, if you were dragging your team down, they all knew it and you were costing them money...so they would self correct very fast.

The company has not gone out of business. Two people quit and he lost some customers (from Adam Smith: "We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals.").

What is known about his decision? 70k is the floor but I've read nowhere it is the ceiling.

Besides dynamics like this happen in EVERY JOB. Everywhere people are overpaid relative to the work they do, and some people make more than others who are more competent. The only difference here is everyone is making a decent salary. The same dynamic surely plays out -- some people are slacking, some people are doing less work but being paid the same. *THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE*. It seems some people feel this dynamic is less outrageous if everyone is being paid 40k a year than 70k a year. I can't understand why. It seems some people hate the idea of the peons making a decent wage.

Post: #35

(08-02-2015 08:35 AM)Metal Wrote:  Redistribution of wealth is essentially designed to undermine the power of men. If these systems didn't exist a man with a good job would have a much higher standard of living and be highly desirable by women.

Instead I am competing with single mums who use the money taxed off me to compete with me for housing and not to mention they are now undesirable to me as partners with their bastard offspring.

The question is what came first, the single mother and then the benefits or the benefits and then the single mum. I have a strong belief the benefits incentivised these women to take that route and their population will grow over time. Needless to say I intend to expat.

This is spot on. Redistribution of wealth is the main reason why it is difficult to find a good wife or even a long term girlfriend in the so called free world.

Post: #36

chagataev Wrote:It seems some people hate the idea of the peons making a decent wage.

"Decent" is a meaningless term. What is a decent wage? I'll save you the trouble - there's no correct answer.

I'm not against a legislated minimum wage, but always remember that the true minimum wage is not 11 or 15 dollars an hour. It's zero. Because that's exactly what you're making if someone can't afford to hire you at the mandated minimum wage.

Post: #37

(08-02-2015 11:41 AM)chagataev Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:24 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  The work 'experiment' at gravity failed because there were no incentives. If he paid everyone 70k and then had the opportunity for bonuses relevant to each position I bet those two would have maxed out the bonuses and stayed.

The crews we ran in forestry camps all were piece rate, ie. you get paid for what you produce and it was amazing to see the variation in people. The hippies only worked hard enough to have beer money and some really intense people with firm monetary goals set their watch to time their production.

The only time I've seen this expanded was with a panel board factory that used 'production teams' the production teams got paid a base rate and then above that was based on what they produced. There were teams of 5 and they were almost autonomous units, they were part of the interview/process and could also fire members from their teams. So, teams that were super high production lunatics hired like people to work on their team, and teams that were taking it easy, work just enough also hired the same type to their teams.

It is/was an amazing model because slackers couldn't hide in the crowd, if you were dragging your team down, they all knew it and you were costing them money...so they would self correct very fast.

The company has not gone out of business. Two people quit and he lost some customers (from Adam Smith: "We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals.").

What is known about his decision? 70k is the floor but I've read nowhere it is the ceiling.

Besides dynamics like this happen in EVERY JOB. Everywhere people are overpaid relative to the work they do, and some people make more than others who are more competent. The only difference here is everyone is making a decent salary. The same dynamic surely plays out -- some people are slacking, some people are doing less work but being paid the same. *THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE*. It seems some people feel this dynamic is less outrageous if everyone is being paid 40k a year than 70k a year. I can't understand why. It seems some people hate the idea of the peons making a decent wage.

Part 1

Read some more of the Washington Times article my friend. In addition to employees leaving the CEO now has to rent out his house to cover cashflow and the minority shareholder in the business (CEO's brother) is bringing a lawsuit against the company that the CEO states they dont' have the funds to cover the legal fees.

The suit was brought specifically because of the wage increases...which probably fucked his dividends.

If you company has shareholders filing suit, top employees are leaving and your cashflow is so fucked up that the owner has to put money in every month. Thats a burning building not a 'hiccup'

Part 2

Tell me, how do you determine what a "living wage' is? Should everyone "give according to their ability and receive according to their needs?". Sounds perfect doesn't it? Well Karl Marx thought so too.

So, if I ran a business where my philosophy was to 'pay a living wage' what I would need is for everyone to come into my office and lay out their personal expense needs for the month and they I would give them a paycheck to cover that. Tom, an software engineer, living in a shitty apartment with a roommate would get $800/month because thats all that he needs. Kristi the cock slut 'social media manager' with a kid, 100k in student loans, makeup, $200 month haircuts and a leased BMW...guess what she gets? $4k/month because 'thats what she needs to live'

A good compromise would be paying Tom and Kristi both $20/hr and if its not enough tell Kristi to get her shit together and stop buying $10 coffee milkshakes at starbucks because she's not getting a raise.

In reality I'd pay Kristi $10/hr because guess what, there are a million other Kristi's out there waiting to take her unskilled, slack ass job where she can be on facebook 50% of the day.

So, if you really want to take on the 'living wage' argument, guess who's going to be making a ton more money than you? Single moms with a ton of kids and women with expensive tastes...because they are resource black holes and need 'more to live'

Post: #38

(08-02-2015 11:57 AM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 08:35 AM)Metal Wrote:  Redistribution of wealth is essentially designed to undermine the power of men. If these systems didn't exist a man with a good job would have a much higher standard of living and be highly desirable by women.

Instead I am competing with single mums who use the money taxed off me to compete with me for housing and not to mention they are now undesirable to me as partners with their bastard offspring.

The question is what came first, the single mother and then the benefits or the benefits and then the single mum. I have a strong belief the benefits incentivised these women to take that route and their population will grow over time. Needless to say I intend to expat.

This is spot on. Redistribution of wealth is the main reason why it is difficult to find a good wife or even a long term girlfriend in the so called free world.

Just to add to that, having women in the workforce in general - especially in top tier positions takes one job away from a man. Women want their man to have a great job, money, etc - but by having them compete with men for the same jobs is incredibly counter-productive.

I'm not against women working - what I am against is women complaining. They fought their 'battle' - now they can work where ever they want, but 'complaining' if they can't find a man decent job has become their fault.

Post: #39

So the guy was trying to address the wage gap.

Basically a SJW type who was in a position of power tried to address the things that people are being vocal about and now had to learn first hand how ridiculous those things are.

Good for him, a much needed hard lesson learned.

Post: #40

(08-02-2015 12:29 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Part 1

Read some more of the Washington Times article my friend. In addition to employees leaving the CEO now has to rent out his house to cover cashflow and the minority shareholder in the business (CEO's brother) is bringing a lawsuit against the company that the CEO states they dont' have the funds to cover the legal fees.

The suit was brought specifically because of the wage increases...which probably fucked his dividends.

If you company has shareholders filing suit, top employees are leaving and your cashflow is so fucked up that the owner has to put money in every month. Thats a burning building not a 'hiccup'

Part 2

Tell me, how do you determine what a "living wage' is? Should everyone "give according to their ability and receive according to their needs?". Sounds perfect doesn't it? Well Karl Marx thought so too.

So, if I ran a business where my philosophy was to 'pay a living wage' what I would need is for everyone to come into my office and lay out their personal expense needs for the month and they I would give them a paycheck to cover that. Tom, an software engineer, living in a shitty apartment with a roommate would get $800/month because thats all that he needs. Kristi the cock slut 'social media manager' with a kid, 100k in student loans, makeup, $200 month haircuts and a leased BMW...guess what she gets? $4k/month because 'thats what she needs to live'

A good compromise would be paying Tom and Kristi both $20/hr and if its not enough tell Kristi to get her shit together and stop buying $10 coffee milkshakes at starbucks because she's not getting a raise.

In reality I'd pay Kristi $10/hr because guess what, there are a million other Kristi's out there waiting to take her unskilled, slack ass job where she can be on facebook 50% of the day.

So, if you really want to take on the 'living wage' argument, guess who's going to be making a ton more money than you? Single moms with a ton of kids and women with expensive tastes...because they are resource black holes and need 'more to live'

Basically, everything you say is right on the money. Though, you see why others and myself say the system has to collapse. "They" need to run out of other's people money because that will be the only time they finally recognize, they can't get any more of others' money.

This small example is what will happen in the larger scenario (and I don't agree with some of the members claiming that this isn't rooted in socialism) where a group of people will try to force producers to pay a higher wage, and the result will be producers will cease, leaving nothing for everyone. Only when there is absolutely nothing, and unfortunately a lot of pain, will people see that's why you always incentivize production.

Post: #41

(08-01-2015 05:34 PM)SunW Wrote:  There was some parable in the NT where Jesus shows the world how absolutely retarded he was in economics, where a vineyard owner pays all the workers an equal wage regardless of how many hours they worked. In reality, people would have exploited this business owner by only showing up during the last hour and making the same wage as if they had worked all day, which anyone with a brain would realize would result in a reduced output of crops.

Actually the Bible is extremely pro-Capitalist and says anyone who refuses to work for a living when they can is a loser to be avoided:

Quote: 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

The word of God says: socialists are losers who do not deserve your company.

Post: #42

The Bible also commands that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff, which is a central tenet of socialism.

Post: #43

(08-02-2015 08:18 PM)SunW Wrote:  Basically, everything you say is right on the money. Though, you see why others and myself say the system has to collapse. "They" need to run out of other's people money because that will be the only time they finally recognize, they can't get any more of others' money.

This small example is what will happen in the larger scenario (and I don't agree with some of the members claiming that this isn't rooted in socialism) where a group of people will try to force producers to pay a higher wage, and the result will be producers will cease, leaving nothing for everyone. Only when there is absolutely nothing, and unfortunately a lot of pain, will people see that's why you always incentivize production.

I doubt many people will ever learn that lesson. I'd like to live in a world where lessons are learned, but, for the devout, there is always someone else to blame.

And, for the devout, they see themselves are better than everyone - more caring, more virtuous, more generous. Not with their own money of course, but with others.

This is about illegals, but the idea is valid.

Post: #44

To "give according to their ability and receive according to their needs" ignores human nature.
If this were the "policy" then people would be downplaying their talents while exaggerating their faults/"needs."

Socialists do not understand human nature. Or maybe they do.
Either way, it's still a scam.

Post: #45

socialism is mathematically -EV
weather people want or not

Post: #46

Post: #47

You cannot get equal results from unequal causes. This like all liberal thinking is an attempt to force something that isnt real. However this was done in the free market where it was allowed to fail.

When it becomes law it is far worse.

Post: #48

(08-02-2015 08:59 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  The Bible also commands that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff, which is a central tenet of socialism.

These kinds of re-interpretations make me laugh. It reminds me of those evangelical preachers on TV like Joel Osteen or whoever that say shit like "Jesus wants you to be rich!".

The Bible pre-dates both capitalism and socialism, and sifting through it to find support for either one is absurd. If ANYTHING, the Bible stands firmly against the fuck-you-it's-mine corporatist oligarchy ("capitalism") that exists today, and you can fill up an ocean with quotes to that effect.

Post: #49

(08-03-2015 08:26 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 08:59 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  The Bible also commands that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff, which is a central tenet of socialism.

These kinds of re-interpretations make me laugh. It reminds me of those evangelical preachers on TV like Joel Osteen or whoever that say shit like "Jesus wants you to be rich!".

The Bible pre-dates both capitalism and socialism, and sifting through it to find support for either one is absurd. If ANYTHING, the Bible stands firmly against the fuck-you-it's-mine corporatist oligarchy ("capitalism") that exists today, and you can fill up an ocean with quotes to that effect.

Name one person in this thread that advocated for a "corporatist oligarchy".

While the Bible may predate economic systems such as capitalism or socialism, it doesn't predate virtues such as hard work, self reliance, personal responsibility, etc. Basically everything socialism pisses all over.

--

On a different note, I always assume that guys who support economic socialism but not sexual socialism are good at getting laid but bad at making money.

Post: #50

(08-03-2015 09:02 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  While the Bible may predate economic systems such as capitalism or socialism, it doesn't predate virtues such as hard work, self reliance, personal responsibility, etc. Basically everything socialism pisses all over.

Those are qualities that are nurtured from childhood and have nothing do with economic systems. What do you imagine, that people in the Soviet Union sat on their asses all day and collected benefits? No, people worked and raised families. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets had one of the best education systems in the modern era, producing countless mathematicians, scientists, engineers etc. Sure it all crumbled in the end, but the fact remains.