http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...2&d=1501550963
Printable View
Democrats have to pretend the PPACA is great because they own it.
But they don't. It was always a compromise/consolation prize, and even Obama has said in interviews that the only reason he signed it is because he knew they couldn't go back from it and it would eventually lead to something more substantial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Of course they do. The PPACA went through both houses with 100% democratic votes and was signed by a democratic president. The idea that republicans own something, even a little bit, that they neither supported nor voted for is really dumb. The PPACA is 100% on the Democratic Party.
It's not that the republicans own it, it's that it was a knowing half-measure. While they may have to take the stance that it was better than nothing, they don't have to pretend that the status quo is fine.
If the PPACA was a smashing success - it did everything they said it would do, it lowered costs, exchanges worked brilliantly, we kept our own doctor - would Dems have offered to share credit with members of a political party that did not vote for it and opposed it at every turn?
Every democrat I've heard speak on it says the ACA needs a lot of improvement, the republican idea that dems find it above reproach is fabricated.
Yea, but even if they think it is shit, it is their shit. This is beyond dispute.
ok?
So the Republicans did nothing to sandbag it? That's interesting.
Oh, I forgot when the Republicans actually made it so the PPACA didn't pass.
It's almost like both sides have nothing to add!
The guy has a week that Shakespear would have thought was too fucked up to write down. I would kill to hear the White House audio of the fighting that broke out after his interview was published.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satsuki
Those tweets from Murphy are ripe. Now you know how the rest of us feel!
Washington has nothing to add, which is why its reach should be limited per the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
You think your state legislators are looking out for you?
That would be an incredibly foolish thing to think.
The Mississippi and Louisiana state leg's would mean that is false.
But Yoshi south is a unique and special place. Lemonade from water fountains and caring thoughtful state legislatures.
I'll be interested to see his thoughts on your interpretation of his view of the South. I'm guessing there's a disconnect there.
You haven't seen it already? Even though I've lived in Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and visited Texas, Georgia and a handful of others, he insist that I live in a bizzaro world and his life experiences, living in one of the richest parts of the south, is more representative.
More so than Washington. It tends to get closer to your needs the more local you get. It also has a larger impact on your daily life, other than your tax bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
TRUMP GONNA GET CAPPED NOA!!!!
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...chmentid=80603
Did they ever find his cat?
Ha ha! Cat's are gay and there are no gays in Chechnya.
That's a low bar, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Well yeah. That's why I don't understand people wanting government to try to solve problems. They get more terrible at it the higher you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Other than driving a tank through a compound and killing some kids, the fda has a pretty good record. (And arguably, the ATF should get most of the blame for that.)
That whole "keeping rotting meat out of my grocery store" thing.
The FDA makes sense, as it falls within my interstate safety umbrella for what the Feds should be allowed to touch. Their record is debatable, but at least its existence is justified.
a friend told me he did but i cant find proof :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
everyone predicted that almost half of the US would leave for Canada and the UK after Trump's victory (like here ) Wonder how many people really did? None of my friends left, though they are not very thrilled with the current president
Most people don't do anything until things get bad for them.
For action to happen, they'd have to shut down walmart, mcdonalds, coke, tv and the internet. Also, maybe make the average single male poor enough that he can't get laid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wngS6CijookQuote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
How have we not corrected Vietnam? I'm starting to think that is the lynchpin to American decline.
Adam Smith states a country is as valuable as it's labor force and a labor force is only as strong as it's faith in law and order. Why work hard if your earned wealth can be stolen from you? What's the difference between El Paso & Juarez? One is the safest large city in the United States the other the murder capital of the world.
So between Vietnam and Watergate we lost faith in the law & order of our nation. And worker productivity began to decline just as Smith predicted.
What will Trump do to restore our faith in our government?
EDIT: Smith not Hume
EDIT: the Vietnam thing wasn't me but 4chan worksafe /tv/ discussion
"You make a movie?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
"Not this time, pal."
By what measure has worker productivity declined? GDP has risen steadily since the period you mark as the moment we gave up. That's precisely when it began to soar. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...a2ce302496.jpg
Adam Smith was proven a dipshit in the 19th century.
That GDP is going to the top brass.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Look at 43-73 compared to every period since.
They also feel the safest. Many cops feal it is their job to protect those neighborhoods.
Right, but that doesn't mean labor is less productive as you allege; it means labor isn't being proportionally compensated for its (ever-increasing) production.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Those graphs make my point; they show exact what my graph does: an increase in product every year. Even if the average % of each yoy increase dipped in some sectors over the last ten years, there was nonetheless an increase. Your graphs show we're now producing more than in 40-73.
How does the GDP show the output of the working class? It's a dollar figure including speculative trading and government manipulation.
Here's PBS's argument for the connection between productivity decline and loss of faith in the government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhT6s06r2NI
Not sure if trolling or honestly don't know what GDP is so I'm just going to ignore.
I don't know. I'll let the lefties at News Hour make that argument for me, since they get paid to do the research.
What was Adam Smith proven wrong on?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejJRhn53X2M
Hair curlers and petticoats.
I've got bad news, they're coming back.
So why is this Clovis guy going to head the USDA? He is less qualified than he typical Trump nominee, which is hard to believe
Now I have no idea what point those bar graphs were supposed to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Maybe its that him being right is too depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
The idea that a good life hinges on tricking rich people via their vanity is crippling sad.
But it isn't entirely incorrect. But I think more than vanity, the ultra wealthy hunger for competition. Or to be more specific, the feeling of winning. (Deep down they hate competition, as they are constantly trying to limit risk and build walled gardens to keep out further competition).
In a sad bit of irony, one of the worst things we ever did to the US was tell everyone to go to college. Now everyone is doing it. And now it is no longer special. The wealthy no longer feel like they must be educated to be unique and tops. So we suffer under an uneducated elite. At least 50 years ago these assholes took basic economics or political science classes.
An interesting parallel is spice. White people conquered and debatably ruined the earth to get fancy spices. They ate all kinds of insane shit covered in odd assortments of weird spices. And a big part of that was weebooness for other cultures, competing with other rich people for the best spices and showing the food off at parties, and having something the poor couldn't have.
Then the dust settled, and the trade routes were sorted, and prices got cheaper, the economy picked up and suddenly those fucking peasants got spices too.
The rich said fuck it and English food went bland.
In short, we just have to figure out how to make the ruling elite think they are better than us by being not shitty human beings.
Back in the day, people who couldn't go to college for whatever reason (intelligence, financial, whatever) maybe made less money at more laborious jobs but also started working at 18.
Nowadays those people go to college anyway and end up working the same laborious jobs for probably less money and start working at 22 with $30,000 in debt. Great fucking system.
blame your 90s high school guidance counselor.
Also, blame the "run it as a business" mindset.
Where do you think high school guidance counselors got the idea everyone had to go to college? Colleges.
We've got a bunch of institutions charging out the ass for watered down degrees that don't apply to any job particularly well. And that goes for STEM just as well as the rest of them. You can get out of a computer science program without knowing how to make a stand alone program that will launch without the debugger.
Labor theory of value and his claim to fame, the Invisible Hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Ok, so if law and order do not incentivise a productive workforce that yields a wealthy community. Then do you think of crime ridden cities such as Detroit, Baltimore, Juarez, Caracas, and Monrovia, Liberia as affluent cities with a robust, healthy working class?
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...chmentid=80619
Here you retards. I didn't have time to look it up earlier and one of you have posted it before when it was the Bush era.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
This also explains why GDP and the productivity of the working class are not mutual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
productivity =/= wages
GDP =/= Productivity
See: https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-...-recession.htm
Attachment 80620
Quote:
Labor productivity is a measure of economic performance that compares the amount of goods and services produced (output) with the number of labor hours used in producing those goods and services. It is defined mathematically as real output per labor hour, and growth occurs when output increases faster than labor hours. Labor productivity growth can be estimated from the difference in growth rates between output and hours worked.
See GDP is realated To and a component of, but not Productivity.Quote:
Gross domestic product (GDP) is a monetary measure of the market value of all final goods and services produced in a period (quarterly or yearly).
You're welcome.
I'm not interested in productivity.
There's no incentive for the worker.
I never claimed otherwise, GDP is used to calculate productivity.
Again that is not in any way related to wages like the items you posted.
There is. The taxes you pay on your income pay for things like healthcare, retirement, roads, etc. When you purchase a house with your income, you pay property tax to pay for education, arts, libraries, sewage, etc. The more productive you are, the more income you earn, the more you earn, the more taxes you pay, the more taxes you pay, the better government services can be bought.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
This is explained here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Again, that's not true. productivity =/= wages in the current US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
True. But that's one of the things we need to fix. One of the reasons productivity is down is because wages are down, and one of the reasons wages are down is much of the wealth in the US comes from speculative trading (1/5th), which requires no productivity, where manufacturing does but is 1/8th of the economy.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...chmentid=80622
Also retail is almost 1 to1 with manufacturing. Tell me why the guy selling a motorcycle makes the same money as the one who built it?
Nigga please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Why in the world are you interpreting "These two industries' GDP percentage is close" as "The average worker pay in these two industries is about the same"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Even if there was any correlation between slices of that pie and wages, keep in mind that there's almost twice as many jobs represented in the retail/wholesale sector as there are in manufacturing.
I'm glad you asked. Why then does it take two people to sale the motorcycle one person made? That's not very productive.
Right, because everything sold here is made here. You absolute loon.
This is only true if a gov uses something like gold or diamonds as currencyQuote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
haha watQuote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Yeah, there isn't a big pile of shekels somewhere that pays for everything. The government can literally just spend money on whatever.
I mean, it's more complicated than that but federal government spending is not handcuffed to taxes.
Truth. A more accurate statement would be the more productive you are, the more likely you get to keep your job, but not even that is 100% truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
in my experience, it is not elaborately different than dukes and land owners giving their favorite family members and buddies choice sections of land or livestock.
A minority of companies behave like meritocracies.
(Though I'm sure Yoshi and Drew will say otherwise and no one will agree with them)
I've been saying that for years. The Corporate system has replicated the Feudal system.
What incentives can you give businesses to reduce nepotism?
Give them the ole number 6
I've never seen an entire company behave as a meritocracy (even though I work in "high-tech" where performance is generally monitored relatively transparently). At best only select divisions within it seem to succeed at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Actually the closest I've heard to it was Koch Industries which embraces chaotic destruction as a rule (aka to succeed at your job you must show up your boss).
It has been my experience that new tech has the least nepotism and that older industries have the most. Also, economic depression increase it.
With new tech, someone actually has to produce and with the increased risk of everything being new, the bosses and investors are more likely to "stack the deck" by actually hiring good people for each position.
With an old industry, people become complacent. A false sense of security sets in. Second and third generation members of the industry hand off choice positions to friends and family, not realizing the damage they can do if those people are bad at their jobs. The company is treated like a farm tended by surfs. The surfs do the work and provide food to the land owners.
Economic decline makes it worse because then they feel a need to protect themselves and their tribe. They hunker down, friends and family eating the company like a bear getting ready for winter. They are afraid to try their luck at other companies, or let their allies work at other companies. They pool their resources and concentrate their power.
nepotism might be the worst thing you can do to your labor pool. Ten times worse than a normal bad employee. A bad employee off the street wastes his own time and labor. A bad employee hired because of nepotism will waste his own time/labor and the time/labor of those covering for him/her. Other employees will have to do his job, and their own, and do neither as well as possible.
And the damage will continue for years, because they have protection from above. Some smuck off the street will eventually be fired or moved.
Affirmative action and quotas do the same thing.
Not nearly to the same level.
Affirmative action gets people in the door, usually for a low to mid level job. Nepotism often places buddies in places of authority so there is an added drop in quality leadership.
Also, in my experience, at worst, minorities are almost qualified for the job. Maybe 80% there. Bosses via nepotism on the other hand are complete failures that are almost literally being dragged along by other people.
Only if one assumes the people hired to fill those quotas are being given positions for which they are unqualified...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
How far are you willing to take this? Will you not use sidewalks or roads, because several productive people made those? Will you give up your vehicle, as it took hundreds of people to make every component of those? Will you give up your phone? Your healthcare? Any good or service produced? Your home? Are you willing to go into the wilderness and build your own shelter and hunt and gather your food?Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Or do you want to be king while others produce for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
You're dreaming if you don't think it exists at nearly all levels except maybe the C-suite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Which is a pretty safe assumption, considering those programs don't exist to promote meritocracy. They may not be unqualified, but if they are not the most qualified, it's no different than nepotism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
It might, but I haven't seen it. I guess it is possible that somewhere, one brown person was hired to be a plant manager just to fill a quota but that hasn't been my experience. What has been my experience is unqualified white men being promoted 2 to 4 job levels because they are friends with the plant manager or the district vp. And then they become a labor hole as the people around them do their jobs for them as they have no idea how to do stuff for themselves. And they never get fried, even when caught robbing the company or fucking secretaries at work because of the same relationship that got them the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
But hey, someone hired a brown female crippled forklift driver to meet a quota.
Considering HR works off mostly soft science, I'm surprised you have so much faith in their ability to distinguished relative degrees of ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
How many companies have you worked for, and how big is the one you always talk about? You seem to have a really skewed anecdotal view of things.
Pot, kettle, etc.
I'd wager the instances where unqualified minorities land major positions would overwhelmingly feed back around to the nepotism/friends in high places factor, not AA. AA gets minority employees in the door, it doesn't rocket them to the top.
We're number two in what we do. And make about 15 billion yearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Stop focusing on unqualified. The only criterion should be optimal qualifications. If the job is going to someone who isn't the most qualified (including salary demands and the like), then there's a problem, regardless of whether it's nepotism, quotas, etc. And it definitely happens from top to bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
I meant number of employees. Valve makes a ton of money but has very few employees for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
There are definitely similarities, but pragmatically speaking, nepotism does more damage.
Bad leadership has a greater impact on an organization than less than optimal people in entry level jobs.
Where are you getting that it only affects entry level jobs?
Reality.
This is a forum. Anyone, please defend Yoshi's stance. Does anyone here, work around bosses, ever, that got their jobs because of affirmative action?
Anyone? Please speak up.
I've only ever had one boss that wasn't a white male, and I've worked a ridiculous number of jobs.
You question Drew's sample size for MBA graduates and then make that post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
edit: This isn't even an opinion discussion. The actual laws in question apply to both hiring and promotions.
Alright. Do you have any data to support what you are asserting?
I can definitely give you anecdotal examples, but they're irrelevant, because the law itself and its interpretation tell you everything you need to know in terms of it not being limited to entry level positions.
You say nepotism, but I just see Networking.
Most jobs don't need the best and brightest. I look around every day at all the projects that should be up in flames, and yet the company just keeps on trucking.