Jump to content

Labor has weakened its strength by taking on so much consumer debt.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, silly boy, you are totally mistaken.  You clearly haven't brushed up on your idiot lib economic theories lately, have you?   You see, the first idiot lib theory of labor posits that if s

You want to improve wages, start with cutting up your credit cards and putting money into savings.  Then you will be in a position to squeeze the balls of management.    

You want to improve wages? Get rid of all the illegals that drive labor wages down.    What your labor is worth is based on simple supply and demand, MORON.   

On 9/17/2020 at 3:33 PM, AnotherJim said:

I learned about credit card bloodsuckers when I was young, and able to climb out of the hole.

When we were first married, a newborn and nary a pot to piss in, we had a JCPenney CC. It had a perpetual balance of 100-130+interest...it happened we would always charge the amount of our monthly payment...after about 6 months, we realized it was bullshit, paid it for and never looked back...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 7:05 PM, Str8tEdge said:

You want to improve wages? Get rid of all the illegals that drive labor wages down. 

 

What your labor is worth is based on simple supply and demand, MORON. 

 

True...I don't think debt load has any bearing...

Those that care, push harder...

Those that don't, business as usual...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 5:35 PM, Butthead said:

Its the dirty little secret that neither side will talk about.    Group insurance, in particular employer based insurance was nothing more than a carrot to convince people to work for a lower wage and at the same time enrich the employer, the insurance company, and the Healthcare industry.    

You're not making more...

Employee A makes 1000 month with 500 employer paid insurance..Nets 1500

Employee B makes 1500 month with 0 employer paid insurance ad pays 800 for private  insurance...Nets 700

 

If a company is large enough, they can self insure and pass savings onto employee....

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Scout said:

 

This is a quote from Adam Smith ( I doubt YOU know of him) about YOUR beliefs on this subject:

 

“as ignorant of the world as of the subject.” -- Adam Smith.  

========================================================================================

 

More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith, now widely regarded as a cheerleader for free market capitalism, raged that the market for labor was rigged. He argued that self-interested employers manipulated the labor market to drive workers’ wages below their competitive level. Smith warned that employers “are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate.” And he ridiculed naysayers who denied that employers colluded to press their advantage against workers “as ignorant of the world as of the subject.” He further noted that “we seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of.”

 

https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-rigged-labor-market

 

 

as long as there are enough people fill the needs of the employer...once those ends aren't met, the plan falls apart...

 

Henry Ford went against that tide...paying way more than GM, Chrysler and the rest...

He had zero labor problems, paid enough for his employees to purchase the cars they built making Ford even more money...everyone was happy...except his competition...

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Butthead said:

We can't really do that now.    Before Obamacare, my insurance policy for a family of 5 was this:

 

198 dollars per month premium.

10k deductible

0 dollar accident indemnity.   

 

Going back in time, that was a much more affordable policy than what most group insurance policies could provide and had people been given the opportunity to negotiate their employment benefits vs wage many would have found that they would have come out ahead.    

 

Its neither here nor there at this point, I'm just pointing out how there could have been leverage that employees COULD have had if they knew and were allowed to use.   

10k deductibles? Holy shit...my employer paid Ins never exceeded 1k for family...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Str8tEdge said:

It might have been possible in such a small economic environment but it’s obviously not possible now. 
 

Your idea that businesses collude with each other to keep labor costs down while fighting for each other labor, has got to be the dumbest line of shit I’ve heard in a long time. 😁

It's not that far fetched...St Cloud, MN and surrounding area 100k pop

Some manufacturing including Frigidaire Freezers, Polaris engine, New Flyer Bus Co, Quad Graphics, etc...John Deere wanted to build engine plant here, but were blacklisted because their entry level base pay was $3-$5 PH higher than the others...

 

Was word on the street, not verified...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ROG62 said:

True...I don't think debt load has any bearing...

Those that care, push harder...

Those that don't, business as usual...

Even had a poster claim the fact businesses run credit checks as proof of the crazed OP. 

 

I ran a business. I know EXACTLY why employers run credit checks and it's typically only when they're handling money or have access to people's houses or easy opportunity to steal. 

 

I have NEVER had an employer check credit for a nursing job. 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Str8tEdge said:

So you ADMIT personal debt has nothing to do with labor value or your ability to negotiate with employers. 

 

Good job kicking your own ass. 😂

No, I agree with the conclusion you don't have a working knowledge of

economics.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 11:18 AM, Scout said:

 

This is a quote from Adam Smith ( I doubt YOU know of him) about YOUR beliefs on this subject:

 

“as ignorant of the world as of the subject.” -- Adam Smith.  

========================================================================================

 

More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith, now widely regarded as a cheerleader for free market capitalism, raged that the market for labor was rigged. He argued that self-interested employers manipulated the labor market to drive workers’ wages below their competitive level. Smith warned that employers “are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate.” And he ridiculed naysayers who denied that employers colluded to press their advantage against workers “as ignorant of the world as of the subject.” He further noted that “we seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of.”

 

https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-rigged-labor-market

 

 

Since when is Adam Smith supposedly the infallible God of all economic theory, dunce?  While Adam Smith did say/write some good things, he also said a TON of very dumb things, like the garbage you just referenced.  And many of the good things were just from stuff that he blatantly plagiarized.  This article, by one of the most brilliant economists of all time, is an excellent critique of him- Link.

 

The mystery is the enormous and unprecedented gap between Smith's exalted reputation and the reality of his dubious contribution to economic thought...  For the problem is not simply that Smith was not the founder of economics. The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong; that, even in an age that had fewer citations or footnotes than our own, Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon.

 

 

Oops, there goes the idea of citing Adam Smith as some sort of ultimate authority...

 

 

Now, instead of simply citing economists, how about we analyze the logic of your dumb little claim, shall we?  I am going to ask you a few very simple questions that will show how absurd and ridiculous your dumb theory truly is, though I suspect you will just cowardly run away while I continually bump the thread to deafening silence, just like you always do.  First question-

 

Assume there is some industry that exists in a free market where a group of evil, greedy employers have somehow successfully "manipulated the labor market to drive workers’ wages below their competitive level" by colluding with each other.  Will this situation result in these evil, greedy employers in this industry making-

 

A.  significantly HIGHER profits than if they had not colluded?

 

or

 

B.  significantly LOWER profits than if they had not colluded?

 

Do you say A or B?

 

Good luck.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

Since when is Adam Smith supposedly the infallible God of all economic theory, dunce?  While Adam Smith did say/write some good things, he also said a TON of very dumb things, like the garbage you just referenced.  And many of the good things were just from stuff that he blatantly plagiarized.  This article, by one of the most brilliant economists of all time, is an excellent critique of him- Link.

 

The mystery is the enormous and unprecedented gap between Smith's exalted reputation and the reality of his dubious contribution to economic thought...  For the problem is not simply that Smith was not the founder of economics. The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong; that, even in an age that had fewer citations or footnotes than our own, Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon.

 

 

Oops, there goes the idea of citing Adam Smith as some sort of ultimate authority...

 

 

Now, instead of simply citing economists, how about we analyze the logic of your dumb little claim, shall we?  I am going to ask you a few very simple questions that will show how absurd and ridiculous your dumb theory truly is, though I suspect you will just cowardly run away while I continually bump the thread to deafening silence, just like you always do.  First question-

 

Assume there is some industry that exists in a free market where a group of evil, greedy employers have somehow successfully "manipulated the labor market to drive workers’ wages below their competitive level" by colluding with each other.  Will this situation result in these evil, greedy employers in this industry making-

 

A.  significantly HIGHER profits than if they had not colluded?

 

or

 

B.  significantly LOWER profits than if they had not colluded?

 

Do you say A or B?

 

Good luck.

 

 

 

 

Dumbfuck forgot to read the other sources I posted.

Good luck, dumbfuck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scout said:

Dumbfuck forgot to read the other sources I posted.

You mean like the one full of moronic drivel by that discredited idiot hack, alan krueger?  Link

 

That's difficult for advocacy groups like NELP to grapple with, so they generally choose to ignore it. Instead, NELP's executive director dismisses basic economic concepts like supply and demand as "simplistic" and "18th century." In the CNN.com op-ed, the group's policy analyst directed readers to a handful of outlying studies -- in particular, a 1994 study on the minimum wage from economists David Card and Alan Krueger. (The latter was recently nominated to chair the President's Council of Economic Advisers).
 
Card and Krueger purportedly debunked the decades-long economic consensus that raising the minimum wage reduces employment, claiming that a 1992 minimum wage increase in New Jersey raised employment. To this day, the study is still showered with superlatives like "groundbreaking" by well-wishers at NELP.
But missing from that re-telling is the story's ending: Card and Krueger's headline-grabbing finding -- that raising the minimum wage had increased employment -- was discredited by another study that found serious problems with the quality of their data.
 
Key questions in the data collection process were so ambiguous that Card and Krueger reported some fast-food locations changing from zero full-time employees to 29 in less than a year; others reported a dramatic drop in part-time employees, from 60 people down to 15.
 
When actual payroll data was analyzed by economists Neumark and Wascher, the results flipped: far from boosting employment, the mandated wage increase in New Jersey had decreased employment -- just as standard economic theory would predict.
 

 

Oops, there goes the idea of citing alan krueger as some sort of ultimate authority...

 

Do you really never get tired of me humiliating you so damn easily, you brainless fucking moron?  Lol...

 

 

4 minutes ago, Scout said:

Good luck, dumbfuck. 

If I am really such a "dumbfuck", then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove me wrong for once, instead of cowardly dodging simple questions like a scared little chickenshit.  So what the fuck are you waiting for?

 

Good luck.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

You mean like the one full of moronic drivel by that discredited idiot hack, alan krueger?  Link

 

That's difficult for advocacy groups like NELP to grapple with, so they generally choose to ignore it. Instead, NELP's executive director dismisses basic economic concepts like supply and demand as "simplistic" and "18th century." In the CNN.com op-ed, the group's policy analyst directed readers to a handful of outlying studies -- in particular, a 1994 study on the minimum wage from economists David Card and Alan Krueger. (The latter was recently nominated to chair the President's Council of Economic Advisers).
 
Card and Krueger purportedly debunked the decades-long economic consensus that raising the minimum wage reduces employment, claiming that a 1992 minimum wage increase in New Jersey raised employment. To this day, the study is still showered with superlatives like "groundbreaking" by well-wishers at NELP.
But missing from that re-telling is the story's ending: Card and Krueger's headline-grabbing finding -- that raising the minimum wage had increased employment -- was discredited by another study that found serious problems with the quality of their data.
 
Key questions in the data collection process were so ambiguous that Card and Krueger reported some fast-food locations changing from zero full-time employees to 29 in less than a year; others reported a dramatic drop in part-time employees, from 60 people down to 15.
 
When actual payroll data was analyzed by economists Neumark and Wascher, the results flipped: far from boosting employment, the mandated wage increase in New Jersey had decreased employment -- just as standard economic theory would predict.
 

 

Oops, there goes the idea of citing alan krueger as some sort of ultimate authority...

 

Do you really never get tired of me humiliating you so damn easily, you brainless fucking moron?  Lol...

 

 

If I am really such a "dumbfuck", then it should be extremely easy for you to finally prove me wrong for once, instead of cowardly dodging simple questions like a scared little chickenshit.  So what the fuck are you waiting for?

 

Good luck.

 

 

Well, sense the topic of discussion is not the minimum wage, it has no bearing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Well, sense the topic of discussion is not the minimum wage, it has no bearing.

 

Well apparently you did not take your own advice and "read the other sources (you) posted", because that dumb article by krueger extensively discusses the MW, dumbass.  And even if it didn't, the fact that the dumb article that you cited in this debate to support your moronic position was written by an author that has been thoroughly discredited as an outright fraud and/or a complete idiot, absolutely has "bearing" on the debate at hand, you damn imbecile.  Lol...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scout said:

No, I agree with the conclusion you don't have a working knowledge of

economics.  

You’re a fucking  moron. Nobody’s cares what your conclusion is. 😆
 

By the way, you never actually proved your ridiculous claim. Not even a shred of supporting evidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Scout said:

Well, nobody but you.  :D  

Well? You’re the one that abandoned your OP and literally spent the entire thread deflecting from your complete and utter failure. 😆

 

You provided ZERO evidence to support your stupid premise. 
 

 Not only are you economically retarded, you don’t understand logic, critical thinking or science. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Str8tEdge said:

Well? You’re the one that abandoned your OP and literally spent the entire thread deflecting from your complete and utter failure. 😆

 

You provided ZERO evidence to support your stupid premise. 
 

 Of only are you economically retarded, you don’t understand logic, critical thinking or science. 
 

 

 

Nob matter how often you decide to comment, we still all know you

are virtually ignorant of Economics.  And you have only made it

worse with every comment (100s of them) you have made on the

subject today.  

 

It is okay that Economics is over your head.

Just don't try to pretend otherwise because you 

paint a portrait of yourself as a fool - a lying fool. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Nob matter how often you decide to comment, we still all know you

are virtually ignorant of Economics.  And you have only made it

worse with every comment (100s of them) you have made on the

subject today.  

 

It is okay that Economics is over your head.

Just don't try to pretend otherwise because you 

paint a portrait of yourself as a fool - a lying fool. 

^^^^ Still desperately trying to deflect from her failure to support her OP. 😆

 

Once again, show us how business devalues your labor worth based on your personal debt, bitch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ROG62 said:

When we were first married, a newborn and nary a pot to piss in, we had a JCPenney CC. It had a perpetual balance of 100-130+interest...it happened we would always charge the amount of our monthly payment...after about 6 months, we realized it was bullshit, paid it for and never looked back...

 

I have only carried a balance one month in many decades of CC use.

Carrying a balance is acceptable in only a few instances (such as starvation). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

I have only carried a balance one month in many decades of CC use.

Carrying a balance is acceptable in only a few instances (such as starvation). 

Now all need to do is prove why your labor value is more than someone who keeps a balance on their credit card. 😆

 

Or admit your OP premise is a huge steaming pile of shit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Str8tEdge said:

Now all need to do is prove why your labor value is more than someone who keeps a balance on their credit card. 😆

 

Or admit your OP premise is a huge steaming pile of shit. 

Only one who didn't get it is you, a guy with no knowledge of Econ.  :D  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Scout said:

Only one who didn't get it is you, a guy with no knowledge of Econ.  :D  

Uh, huh. I presented my A paper from an actual economics course. You probably didn’t recognize it because you’re an uneducated moron. 😆

 

Speaking of presenting, when you going to prove your labor is worth more than someone with a credit card balance? 😅

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Str8tEdge said:

Uh, huh. I presented my A paper from an actual economics course. You probably didn’t recognize it because you’re an uneducated moron. 😆

 

Speaking of presenting, when you going to prove your labor is worth more than someone with a credit card balance? 😅

 

Nobody cares about a paper you CLAIM to have written.

They do care that you are so ignorant of the subject

that Adam Smith said you are ignorant.

They do care that you are so ignorant of the subject

YOU STILL can't figure out the topic while everybody ELSE

had no problems wrapping their minds around it.

 

That says it is YOUR brain that is inadequate.

I know I have many times the number of Econ classes you have.

We know you managed a mall store (requires high school diploma) - and couldn't

find a DECENT job for NINE YEARS.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Nobody cares about a paper you CLAIM to have written.

They do care that you are so ignorant of the subject

that Adam Smith said you are ignorant.

They do care that you are so ignorant of the subject

YOU STILL can't figure out the topic while everybody ELSE

had no problems wrapping their minds around it.

 

That says it is YOUR brain that is inadequate.

I know I have many times the number of Econ classes you have.

We know you managed a mall store (requires high school diploma) - and couldn't

find a DECENT job for NINE YEARS.  

Then why don't you PROVE ME WRONG and show the board why you get paid more based on your low credit card balance? 😂

 

Because you can't. Labor value has ZERO to do with personal debt you FUCKING MORON. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...