Meme & Quote Thread

sturg33 said:
Next do the chart about how much productivity is lost due to unions and regulations
Click to expand...

On a more serious note, thank you for making this clear: you'd rather increase a company's productivity (read: profits) at the expense of workers (in terms of both temporal and compensatory fairness) than vice versa.
 
jpx7 said:
Have to have existing data to do a chart, though.
Click to expand...

KEY FINDINGS

Economic growth in the United States has, on average, been slowed by 0.8 percent per year since 1980 owing to the cumulative effects of regulation:

If regulation had been held constant at levels observed in 1980, the US economy would have been about 25 percent larger than it actually was as of 2012.
This means that in 2012, the economy was $4 trillion smaller than it would have been in the absence of regulatory growth since 1980.
This amounts to a loss of approximately $13,000 per capita, a significant amount of money for most American workers.

summary-figure.png
 
jpx7 said:
On a more serious note, thank you for making this clear: you'd rather increase a company's productivity (read: profits) at the expense of workers (in terms of both temporal and compensatory fairness) than vice versa.
Click to expand...

You somehow think economic growth and productivity is bad for workers. When in reality, it produces more jobs, more wealth, higher wages, and higher tax revenue for you to run your social justice projects.

Or, to put it more simply, you agree with Bernie Sanders in that bread lines are a good thing because it's more fair
 
sturg33 said:
This amounts to a loss of approximately $13,000 per capita, a significant amount of money for most American workers.
Click to expand...

And there's the key fallacy: assuming that said increase would be distributed per capita to workers, as opposed to retained by the few owners of vast capital.

But there's another important fallacy at work in your quoted passage: the assumption that the only effects of regulation worth considering are monetary "costs" to productivity, as opposed to material gains to workers' quality-of-life.

sturg33 said:
You somehow think economic growth and productivity is bad for workers.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Instead, I am willing to consider that it can be both good or bad for workers, depending upon other conditions; and moreover to consider that "productivity", rotely measured in dollars and absent other exterior concerns, is not necessarily a be-all/end-all good in and of itself.
 
jpx7 said:
And there's the key fallacy: assuming that said increase would be distributed per capita to workers, as opposed to retained by the few owners of vast capital.

But there's another important fallacy at work in your quoted passage: the assumption that the only effects of regulation worth considering are monetary "costs" to productivity, as opposed to material gains to workers' quality-of-life.

Not at all. Instead, I am willing to consider that it can be both good or bad for workers, depending upon other conditions; and moreover to consider that "productivity", rotely measured in dollars and absent other exterior concerns, is not necessarily a be-all/end-all good in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Just feels like you always start from the position of businesses are bad.

I work for a multi-billion dollar company... and employees "steal" from the business all the time. They take long lunches, they browse the internet all the time (guilty), they don't follow T&E standards... it goes both ways.

But your solution to your little graph above is to solve a small problem by further strangling growth in this country
 
jpx7 said:
And there's the key fallacy: assuming that said increase would be distributed per capita to workers, as opposed to retained by the few owners of vast capital.
Click to expand...


Depends on what regulations we cut. Ending federal regulation of pot would open a 100 billion dollar market and create a ****load of jobs. The lowest incomes would benefit the most as they are the most targeted and adversely affected by this federal regulation.

Many other regulations have been Weaponized for police to use the poorest as atm machines. For example one story I posted last week about jacksonville. The city was poorly designed and some people have to go miles out of their way to legally cross a street. They hire an expert consultant who tells them no amount of enforcement is going to change behavior because of how poorly the city is built so he recommended they invest in improving that rather than fining people to death. Yeah he was ignored. Now we have cops stalking the poorest communities handing out fines to the people who can least afford it for **** that isn't their fault. That's one regulation that is huge. In fact most regulations like jay walking are used as excuses to rob poor people. Ending these would sit ifixanrlt help the poorest. We could also save billions in incarceration.

We flat out leave 1-2 trillion on the table every year with bull**** regulations. That's the price you pay I guess for letting one business vote to make a competitor illegal.
 
Economic growth is never a bad thing. Economic opportunity is the only thing that can pull people out of poverty. No government assistance which just keeps them there.
 
i have never said how i view Che

other than that comment that he is far from the only leader to have killed people.
 
goldfly said:
i have never said how i view Che

other than that comment that he is far from the only leader to have killed people.
Click to expand...

if my memory serves - and it usually does... there was a poster who posted a pic of Collin Kaepernick rocking a Che shirt... and you responded with "what's wrong with Che?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top