AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-08-03, 20:58   Link #29821
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
If the 'burger flippers' can get organized and force the fast food chains to cave in, they have earned their wage increase.
That's what amazes me the most, they are one of the most easily replaced workforce in existence, with little to no job-related skills required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Tell me, what value did that landlord add to the property? What was his contribution to society?
Uh, was he supposed to spend his money to purchase the property for you to live on for free?

Quote:
People need to live somewhere, so he could certainly hike up prices to accommodate himself and his lifestyle as he wished.
And it's the landlord's responsibility to provide them? High or low, the pricing will reach a equilibrium based on supply and demand.

Quote:
So what did my fellow tenants and I get in exchange for having him drain money from us each month?
A place to live?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Ideally these jobs would provide sustainable living at the very least, and an opportunity for upward mobility at best (whether within the job itself, or by offering some sort of opportunity for further education and training, including wages to cover such a thing).
Ideally we'll all live in an utopia and have everything we will ever want, but that's not reality. If you simply double everyone's wages, all you'd end up with is massive inflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
When it comes to housing we're one step removed from the medical scenario, but it's similar. People have to live somewhere. Not everyone has the resources (time or money) to live wherever they want in relation to their job. Not everyone has the resources to purchase their own property outright; thus they are forced to pay rent to someone else. This is an unavoidable drain on one's resources.
Living wherever you want is not a right, it's something you have to earn. Live with parents, get some roommates if you have to, housing is not exempt from the "live within one's means" rule.

You think the US is bad? try Taipei, where a modest apartment can costs upwards of $1mil+ USD, yet the average monthly income of young workers are barely $1k a month.

Quote:
I don't think that these jobs were "designed" for anything - they're jobs that needed to be filled.
and the wages of those jobs reflects the skills required and the value those jobs provide.

Quote:
How do you feel if we begin to talk about buildings that are already constructed - perhaps badly in need of renovation - and that are owned by the heirs to the property, or groups that simply buy and sell properties? These people or groups skim money off of people who need somewhere to live. What value are they providing back to society or to their tenants?
I'd think they're shitty people, but it's well within their rights - it's their property, they are under no more obligation to provide cheap housing to you than you are obligated to share your house with homeless people.
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-03, 22:28   Link #29822
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Thousands rally to support embattled Tunisia government
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9720BE20130804

NRA opens Midwest museum showing nearly 1,000 firearms
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97207920130803
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-03, 22:56   Link #29823
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Ideally we'll all live in an utopia and have everything we will ever want, but that's not reality. If you simply double everyone's wages, all you'd end up with is massive inflation.
We still HAVE massive inflation, because instead of doubling everyone's wages, we give CEOs one thousand times their old wages.

Wages have NOT moved, for the poor. While the rich are getting multiples of their past salaries. To say "you can't double everyone's salaries" is an out right dismissing of the issue, we are saying the record profits should have been used to raise salaries of the bottom of the ladder rather than go into huge bonuses of people who haven't earned them.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 00:00   Link #29824
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
We still HAVE massive inflation, because instead of doubling everyone's wages, we give CEOs one thousand times their old wages.
worker wages have stagnated over the years, which have sapped our purchasing power, but that's quite different from "massive inflation". Go ahead, double the wage of every worker in the US tomorrow, and tell me how that works out for you.

Quote:
Wages have NOT moved, for the poor. While the rich are getting multiples of their past salaries. To say "you can't double everyone's salaries" is an out right dismissing of the issue, we are saying the record profits should have been used to raise salaries of the bottom of the ladder rather than go into huge bonuses of people who haven't earned them.
While that'd be nice, on what legal basis do you remotely began to try to stand on with that?
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 00:21   Link #29825
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
While that'd be nice, on what legal basis do you remotely began to try to stand on with that?
Minimum wage laws need to increase. That is all. You can complain, but the fact is there is no room for arguing for "competitiveness" when even China is asking for higher wages.

If companies want to move their company overseas, then hit them with tariffs when they want to sell the product back home. I am sick of all the claims that the companies can afford to throw massive bonuses at CEOs but not needing to pay their regular employees better.

"Free Market" is a joke when it is about exploiting the workers. The workers deserve more, the workers deserve a raise. And when the workers can feed themselves, they can buy local products.

Quote:
worker wages have stagnated over the years, which have sapped our purchasing power, but that's quite different from "massive inflation". Go ahead, double the wage of every worker in the US tomorrow, and tell me how that works out for you.
That would just means the companies might not be able to offer bonuses to their CEOs for that year. The total quantity of money in circulation is the same, it's just in more people's hands. There is no EXTRA money, so no more inflation than before.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 01:16   Link #29826
frivolity
My posts are frivolous
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 25
Imposing tariffs is not going to solve the problem of offshoring, and opens up a whole can of worms. First of all, it would be a breach of USA's numerous international obligations under the WTO (especially the GATT) and other treaties. Secondly, other countries will definitely retaliate with their own trade barriers, which will ultimately harm the US economy more in the long run.
__________________
frivolity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 01:38   Link #29827
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by frivolity View Post
Imposing tariffs is not going to solve the problem of offshoring, and opens up a whole can of worms. First of all, it would be a breach of USA's numerous international obligations under the WTO (especially the GATT) and other treaties. Secondly, other countries will definitely retaliate with their own trade barriers, which will ultimately harm the US economy more in the long run.
My point stands, the companies can afford to pay more, and it is the government's job to make sure there is no wage exploitation. Any jobs that could be outsourced have already been outsourced, so what's important is to raise wages of the left over jobs. It is impossible to get the lost jobs back by lowering minimum wage; so don't bother going that route.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 01:55   Link #29828
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
As if whatever leftover jobs can be done with higher pay or the people meet the requirements.
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 02:13   Link #29829
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
As if whatever leftover jobs can be done with higher pay or the people meet the requirements.
Higher pay is possible BECAUSE the companies are making record profits. You can't tell me salary increases are impossible because the CEOs need their bonuses more badly.

Feel free to argue that companies in financial trouble be able to freeze salary increases. I won't oppose that. But if a company can grow and prosper yet refuse to reward their low rank employees, don't expect my sympathy.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 02:15   Link #29830
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
I don't have sympathy for undeserved higher pay, but then that's with me working at the higher management level.
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 02:29   Link #29831
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
I don't have sympathy for undeserved higher pay, but then that's with me working at the higher management level.
Currently "Undeserving Higher Pay" goes to all the CEOs who burn their companies to the ground. The lower down the ladder people deserve to get paid more when the company is earning more money, but they don't. Because magically to pay employees less is considered a cost-saving, and that "saving" end up as CEO bonuses.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 02:33   Link #29832
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Exactly my problem with that kind of generalizing view: people are taking an extreme minority to be the norm. It's one of the worst fallacies one can commit, yet is done so easily it's quite sad.

But then, as I said, I'm not one of the masses, so perhaps my words mean nothing to most like it always has been. It's something that wouldn't change, unfortunately.
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 03:00   Link #29833
Traece
:cool:
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Idaho
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
Exactly my problem with that kind of generalizing view: people are taking an extreme minority to be the norm. It's one of the worst fallacies one can commit, yet is done so easily it's quite sad.

But then, as I said, I'm not one of the masses, so perhaps my words mean nothing to most like it always has been. It's something that wouldn't change, unfortunately.
I'm basically required to agree with what you've said. Unfortunately, the media is partly responsible for this. These days they like vocalizing minorities and exposing them to the masses as if they represent some larger entity. You get a large ruckus over issues that are sometimes completely trivial. Even more so, a lot of times that ruckus is exaggerated for the spotlight. The rest of the blame would fall upon social media, I suppose. People will latch on to an issue very quickly if they sympathize with it even slightly.

As far as management earning more than their worth, that's quite the issue these days. The CEOs and their bonuses tends to be the image portrayed as the shining beacon of 'evil' to rally people. It certainly doesn't help that for all but the most mundane entry-level careers, college education is used arbitrarily to cull applicants.

Incidentally, I'm not surprised that Sum is a manager.

Edit: And now that I know more, it explains so much.
__________________

Last edited by Traece; 2013-08-04 at 03:13.
Traece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 03:06   Link #29834
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traece View Post
Incidentally, I'm not surprised that Sum is a manager.
*Shrugs*

Head of logistics/SCM and board member. Not really as high-paying as many would think, but then I'm not in some zaibatsu.
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 05:35   Link #29835
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
Minimum wage laws need to increase. That is all.
That can't be all. The problem with just "minimum wages increase" is that you have more and more people on minimum wage as those catch up to their salary without them getting a raise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
If the rent is hiked to astronomically high levels, you're correct. Otherwise, "what the market will bear" is something that sounds good but provides little assurance that things will be kept sane or fair. Have you ever read one of my rants about the medical insurance industry, or the idea that "the market" sorts out the pricing of medical procedures? The basic premise is that "market forces" depend on equal negotiating power from both parties, the buyer and the seller. The specific power of the buyer is the ability to walk away from the deal if the terms (such as the cost) don't suit them. In medicine, the "buyer" (the patient) usually doesn't have this power. You can always elect not to have a procedure or treatment, but how much are parts of your body worth to you?
So what happens if you artificially limit the rents? A handful of really lucky (or well connected) people get cheap housing at a convenient location. Everyone else still has to make do with the fact that there isn't enough good housing for everybody. And as people stop investing in real estate, the situation only worsens.

You want to give more power to the tenants? See to it more housing becomes available.

Quote:
If there were no landlords people would still need a place to live, and few people would be content with living in a tent. Individuals or groups would put up housing.
It's not about what they're content with, it's about what they can pay for. You said it yourself: not everyone has the resources to become a homeowner. If they can't purchase a place secondhand, they can't buy a land and have a house built on it.

Last edited by Anh_Minh; 2013-08-04 at 07:34.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 06:07   Link #29836
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
Currently "Undeserving Higher Pay" goes to all the CEOs who burn their companies to the ground. The lower down the ladder people deserve to get paid more when the company is earning more money, but they don't. Because magically to pay employees less is considered a cost-saving, and that "saving" end up as CEO bonuses.
'Deserve' is a moral concept and it has little meaning in the way wages are determined. 'Working hard' is another irrelevant concept.

Senior management remuneration, involves fairly trivial amounts when compared to the total wage bill of any major company. They are just one group of employees who have thrived in the current economic climate due to their strong bargaining position. It's a symptom of economic inequality but not the cause.

Globalization, increased competition, deregulation and weakened unions have reduced the bargaining position of many (not necessarily low skilled) workers. As a result the owners of capital (shareholders, private owners) were able to increase their slice of the pie.
Bri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 07:18   Link #29837
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
This has nothing to do with disliking capitalism. As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, capitalism relies on equal negotiating power between the purchaser and the seller. Such a healthy balance exists in some regions of the country, but in many of the places that I've lived it has been horribly skewed.
I think you're just moving the goalpost as you clarify your position. At first it was all landlords, now it's people who inherited property from their family, in certain areas of the country with a skewed market, that don't renovate when needed... etc. If that's your position, then yeah, I don't like those people either. You can't apply those pretty unusual circumstances to every landlord, though. Despite the fact that you said your family owns properties, I get the impression you haven't actually interacted with very many landlords....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
The "emotional stake" in this only has to do with what I perceive as unfair slights against the poor. We complain about people on welfare, or poor who demand more payment for their jobs. Tell me, where is the outrage every time landlords raise the rent by some percentage, well above inflation, each year? Complaints are leveled against people on welfare, who are identified as parasites who contribute nothing to society; where is the outrage against the landlords who are doing little more than sitting on properties and siphoning money out of the tenants who may be unable to live anywhere else?
I really don't complain about people on welfare. Like your complaints about landlords, my welfare complaints are more or less restricted to a specific subset of individuals, ie people who take advantage of the system, are lazy, etc, but I completely acknowledge and respect the utility, nobility, and need for welfare, even if there are individuals who I find to be irksome benefactors of this system (and I do think the system needs reform, badly).

Further, your hypothetical story just doesn't mesh with what I've seen in reality. There are several things wrong with your scenario. Let me give you a real-life example of two properties I manage. One is in Dorchester, one of the poorest areas of Boston (possibly the poorest, or second only to Mattapan). The entire building is rented out to subsidized, poor tenants. To clarify, this isn't a government funded building. It's not government sponsored subsidized housing. It's just a normal building, but the vast majority of applicants to any given vacant apartment will be section 8 tenants who have their rent paid in full each month, often for years with no end in sight. The rents in this building average to about $1200 a month. Some tenants work, some appear to be the 'parasites' of the section 8 system and spend their time on nefarious activities.

Then there's another building out in suburbia in a fairly small town by east Massachusetts standards. This building has significantly lower rents, usually around $700 a month (the "guiding hand" of capitalism is at play here, as there are different upper rent limits for these different markets). The building, in my opinion, is nicer, though not really due to any favoritism by management. The building in Dorchester was actually completely renovated to the studs 10 years ago, whereas the suburban one has not been completely renovated since the 80's (capital improvements have been made every few years, but no gut renovation), but is still in nice condition. You may guess that this has to do with, frankly, slovenly living style by the poor tenants in Dorchester (trash frequently has to be picked up off the ground in common hallways, etc).

The suburban building is located close by to the train that shoots you right in to the center of Boston in approximately 30 minutes. The Dorchester property, despite being in Boston, is not particularly close to any employment center and is actually about a 10-15 minute walk to the subway. You might get to your hypothetical job in Boston more quickly, but not by much, and you'd end up spending the same amount to use a monthly pass for the public transit system.

Not to mention the obvious fact that the suburban property is in a nice, quiet area and the urban one is in a high-crime area.

So yeah, on the ground, things look a bit different from the picture you're painting in hypothetical land. Rents are definitely determined by their market (based on good ole' supply and demand). There are definitely opportunities for poorer tenants to migrate to different, cheaper areas, in my experience (their subsidies ARE transferable to different towns in the same county, at least in MA, btw). Also, and I understand that perhaps MA is above the bar in this regard, there are consistent livability inspections by various government agencies in any apartment building above 9 units. You either make the necessary repairs and implement capital improvements every few years, or they will come in and force you to. It's that simple. This also costs money, and no, you can't simply tack on extra rent every time you make improvements to your building. You can raise rent when the market rate allows it and if you try to fight against this, then you will have persistent vacancies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Ironically, the concept of landlords is one of the few elements from the feudal era that lives on in modern society.
It's not irony. I brought up the feudal era purposely. There have been a gargantuan number of changes to the system since that era. I haven't even touched upon how skewed the court system is in favor of tenants, either (ones who don't pay anything, at all, damage your unit, etc)...
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 08:48   Link #29838
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
About "simply raising the wages of all low-end workers in big companies":

I hope you are not serious about that... You should know that that would essentially annihilate every small company nearby because the smaller companies would not be able to keep up with the wages and every worker would leave for the bigger one. That is why in Germany there are certain "market regulations" and because of those you cannot simply raise or lower wages as you see fit.
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 09:13   Link #29839
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
worker wages have stagnated over the years, which have sapped our purchasing power, but that's quite different from "massive inflation". Go ahead, double the wage of every worker in the US tomorrow, and tell me how that works out for you.
Well, logically speaking most people would be better off for up to a year, maybe two years. If one doubles one's money but the purchasing power of that doubled money remains the same as if it hadn't been doubled, then as long as they have liabilities they still come out ahead.

For example, you sign a lease for $1k a month. Week later, this doubling happens. You still only pay $1k a month for that year (or two, however long the lease is), though you have twice as much money, effectively cutting your liabilities in half.

This is all, of course, assuming the price of everything pretty much doubles at the same time as well to compensate for the doubling of wages so as to prevent economic collapse. In other words, after that first year or two there wouldn't really be a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
Exactly my problem with that kind of generalizing view: people are taking an extreme minority to be the norm. It's one of the worst fallacies one can commit, yet is done so easily it's quite sad.
But it's okay to generalize anyone who isn't upper management as doing work undeserving of more money? Nice hypocrisy there.
GDB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-04, 09:35   Link #29840
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
But it's okay to generalize anyone who isn't upper management as doing work undeserving of more money? Nice hypocrisy there.
It's called ironic sarcasm. I deliberately make such statements to show just how flawed people's arguments are.
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.