Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dude the massive impact of NYC land values stretches all the way to CT and NJ. The effect on the economy is that the person in NYC or even CT and NJ may find themselves competing with labor in Kansas where the property values are far less.
When economies grow there is often times a point where the company looks at their labor force in a high cost area and moves as much as they can somewhere else. Usually they only leave behind the highest skilled employees.
It is very hard to understand markets when you can only consider one or two people at a time.
I am by no means looking at it from a one or two person scenario.
I see where this is going.
You are right and I am wrong. You don't respond to what I say, you simply criticize it and then, as I said yesterday, cite theory.
Well....DUDE.....there is more than one theory as I am sure you realize. Neither theory can be proven as right or wrong...although many, like you, and like politicians from both sides, seem to believe the answer is clear.
Unlike you, I have repeatedly said I understood your reasoning and then gave my theory as to why I disagree.
You throw out terms like "good grief" and "OMG" and "dude you are missing it"...
Fine. You win. You are right and 50% of the people out there are wrong.
By the way....you here in the northeast?
You have indirectly sited market theory to me multiple times in this thread. Pretty much everyone who is a conservative indirectly references it. When I make an argument I am making it in reference to the foundation of your argument.
Your theory depends on things. It is not accurate to say that it is my theory to say your position depends on certain market conditions. It is a given. The real question is if they are present or not. Which they clearly are.
I am not an ideologue. Changing economic conditions would change what I think should be done.
Ohh good grief, the silly "it isn't a zero sum game" blah blah blah.
Never said it was. I would also point out that it is a fact that certain macro economic conditions do favor one group over the next.
I generally think wealth redistribution is an inefficient way of dealing with problems in markets but I am not against them based on ideology. If it was more efficient to redistribute wealth than to rely on politicians to fix the labor market in some other way then so be it. In a perfect world there is no wealth redistribution but we don't live in that world.
I personally believe neither redistribution OR politicians are efficient ways to fix the labor market.
We have HR laws and OSHA regulations that protect the worker. From there on, all we need is for government to stay out of it and let the market do its job.
You don't like Walmart because it pays its employees minimum wage? Don't buy from them. Enough don't like it? They will pay their employees more.
Pretty basic. Politicians make it complicated.
So does China manipulating our currency.
Your faith seems to be in markets producing good results but you don't really seem to understand how markets produce good results and why they may not produce good results. Laissez faire economics is based on market theory btw.
Why would we want to fix inequality if it aint broken?
Is it broken?
Why would we want to fix inequality if it aint broken?
Is it broken?
there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.
However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.
Why would we want to fix inequality if it aint broken?
Is it broken?
there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.
However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.
Gates makes a shit load more than I do.
His considerable wealth has never compelled me to be any less affluent than I otherwise would have been. In fact, his wealth is an outcome of his brains, talent and industry which has served a lot of people to get wealthier (directly and indirectly).
I personally believe neither redistribution OR politicians are efficient ways to fix the labor market.
We have HR laws and OSHA regulations that protect the worker. From there on, all we need is for government to stay out of it and let the market do its job.
You don't like Walmart because it pays its employees minimum wage? Don't buy from them. Enough don't like it? They will pay their employees more.
Pretty basic. Politicians make it complicated.
So does China manipulating our currency.
Your faith seems to be in markets producing good results but you don't really seem to understand how markets produce good results and why they may not produce good results. Laissez faire economics is based on market theory btw.
Sorry friend. You are dead wrong about what I understand.
And I have no doubt I can keep up with you in a discussion about Laissez Faire Economics. No need to take the high road and educate me on market theory......btw.
there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.
However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.
Gates makes a shit load more than I do.
His considerable wealth has never compelled me to be any less affluent than I otherwise would have been. In fact, his wealth is an outcome of his brains, talent and industry which has served a lot of people to get wealthier (directly and indirectly).
Things like wages are determined in markets.
HTH
Gates makes a shit load more than I do.
His considerable wealth has never compelled me to be any less affluent than I otherwise would have been. In fact, his wealth is an outcome of his brains, talent and industry which has served a lot of people to get wealthier (directly and indirectly).
Things like wages are determined in markets.
HTH
No shit. How long did it take you to figure that out, genius?
I hope something helps you.
Facts and logic have clearly failed you entirely.
Meanwhile, despite your studious efforts to miss the point, the point remains.
Inequality in income and in generated wealth is NOT a bad thing. It is a GOOD thing.
Folks getting wealthy does NOT ONE DAMN thing to deprive others of anything.
Since wealth is not a bad thing and harms the "poor" not at all, your unbridled hostility to it can ONLY be explained in a couple of ways. You are either blindly envious or stupidly socialist.
Things like wages are determined in markets.
HTH
No shit. How long did it take you to figure that out, genius?
I hope something helps you.
Facts and logic have clearly failed you entirely.
Meanwhile, despite your studious efforts to miss the point, the point remains.
Inequality in income and in generated wealth is NOT a bad thing. It is a GOOD thing.
Folks getting wealthy does NOT ONE DAMN thing to deprive others of anything.
Since wealth is not a bad thing and harms the "poor" not at all, your unbridled hostility to it can ONLY be explained in a couple of ways. You are either blindly envious or stupidly socialist.
So if wages and compensation more generally speaking are determined in markets doesn't that mean that certain market forces could benefit one group of people at the expense of another?
Market forces almost always do benefit certain groups more than other groups.
So what?
If market forces combine to make investment in buggy whips a valuable thing, then the fact that I am not in the group that made such an investment means that (unlike those who did) I will not be reaping that benefit.
Does the fact that others DID make the investment deprive me of anything? Nope. I lost the opportunity of my own volition. The gained the benefit of THEIR own volition. But their good fortune did NOT come at MY expense.
Liberals are Socialists/Communists. What they were raised and inculcated to believe in Liberal Indoctrination Centers is a very simple. It's classic Socialism: "Everyone deserves a trophy and nobody deserves two." Simple as that folks. And if someone somehow (must have stolen it) has two then we should take it away and cut it up and give it to everyone.
Unfortunately for them that is NOT how mankind evolved.
The LIBs all believe in 'evolution' but when it comes to pointing out that man has only survived by the 'law of the jungle' the LIBs must look away in horror!
"It can't be that we are all not going to get the trophy!!!!!! We were promised by Mr. Bill our teacher that no one should be better off then anyone else in life. (Wonder if 'Mr. Bill's own life wasn't going so well living next door to the dude who always had lots of toys, vacations, parties, which Mr. and Mrs. Bill were never invited to.) The same Mr. Bill who liked to wear the same sweater and tam set his wife did on the weekends.
It's all a pant load of LIB sour grapes. Always has been.
NOTE: The first time any of these Libs some how end up with a pile of money what's the first thing they do with it? Start a business? Donate it? Invest it in the country's economy? No. They take it and hide it. Or they can do what Lawrence ODonnel does with some of his: Go on TV and scream about how the 'little man' is getting screwed.....while he's wearing five grand in hand tailored shirts/socks/ties/suits and custom made Italian shoes every night.
"All men are created equal"
I have read and studied our founding documents over and over and I still haven't found the part that says, "All men shall die equal".
Would one of you Liberal Obama lovers please show me?
Market forces almost always do benefit certain groups more than other groups.
So what?
If market forces combine to make investment in buggy whips a valuable thing, then the fact that I am not in the group that made such an investment means that (unlike those who did) I will not be reaping that benefit.
Does the fact that others DID make the investment deprive me of anything? Nope. I lost the opportunity of my own volition. The gained the benefit of THEIR own volition. But their good fortune did NOT come at MY expense.
The market forces in question are not for buggy whips but market forces that impact labor markets. The result of these market forces is that less people are employed than would be employed without these market forces. This results in inefficiencies in the labor market.
I will limit the issue to just one thing so that you can keep up.
Market forces almost always do benefit certain groups more than other groups.
So what?
If market forces combine to make investment in buggy whips a valuable thing, then the fact that I am not in the group that made such an investment means that (unlike those who did) I will not be reaping that benefit.
Does the fact that others DID make the investment deprive me of anything? Nope. I lost the opportunity of my own volition. The gained the benefit of THEIR own volition. But their good fortune did NOT come at MY expense.
The market forces in question are not for buggy whips but market forces that impact labor markets. The result of these market forces is that less people are employed than would be employed without these market forces. This results in inefficiencies in the labor market.
I will limit the issue to just one thing so that you can keep up.
False.
It is BECAUSE of market forces (like supply and demand a better product, etc) that Microsoft was able to make "stuff" that EMPLOYED so very many people AND, in the process, ALSO created lots of OTHER support industries with the resulting DEMAND for labor.
There is not a shred of logic or "fact" in your utterly baseless claim that absent market forces MORE people would be "employed."
Market forces may well be inefficient. But they are far more efficient long term than the human beings who would try to impose their own form of "order" on such things.
You couldn't prove-up your claim if your life itself depended on it.
The market forces in question are not for buggy whips but market forces that impact labor markets. The result of these market forces is that less people are employed than would be employed without these market forces. This results in inefficiencies in the labor market.
I will limit the issue to just one thing so that you can keep up.
False.
It is BECAUSE of market forces (like supply and demand a better product, etc) that Microsoft was able to make "stuff" that EMPLOYED so very many people AND, in the process, ALSO created lots of OTHER support industries with the resulting DEMAND for labor.
There is not a shred of logic or "fact" in your utterly baseless claim that absent market forces MORE people would be "employed."
Market forces may well be inefficient. But they are far more efficient long term than the human beings who would try to impose their own form of "order" on such things.
You couldn't prove-up your claim if your life itself depended on it.
Are you really denying that there can be a market force that would hurt employment?
/boggle
False.
It is BECAUSE of market forces (like supply and demand a better product, etc) that Microsoft was able to make "stuff" that EMPLOYED so very many people AND, in the process, ALSO created lots of OTHER support industries with the resulting DEMAND for labor.
There is not a shred of logic or "fact" in your utterly baseless claim that absent market forces MORE people would be "employed."
Market forces may well be inefficient. But they are far more efficient long term than the human beings who would try to impose their own form of "order" on such things.
You couldn't prove-up your claim if your life itself depended on it.
Are you really denying that there can be a market force that would hurt employment?
/boggle
YOU didn't ask whether there CAN be SOME such forces.
Go back and read the drivel you had actually posted.
NOW, of course, I understand your need to modify and quibble.
Shit. Nobody would want to be saddled with the simplistic tripe you have posted.
SOME market forces CAN, from time to time, and under SOME conditions, adversely impact (at least temporarily) employment.
And what might YOUR "fix" for that be?
Are you really denying that there can be a market force that would hurt employment?
/boggle
YOU didn't ask whether there CAN be SOME such forces.
Go back and read the drivel you had actually posted.
NOW, of course, I understand your need to modify and quibble.
Shit. Nobody would want to be saddled with the simplistic tripe you have posted.
SOME market forces CAN, from time to time, and under SOME conditions, adversely impact (at least temporarily) employment.
And what might YOUR "fix" for that be?
No I didn't ask. I simply stated the fact. Which you claimed was false.
I am glad you were so quick to correct your rather ridiculous mistake and that we can all agree that market forces can impact employment.
Now let me suggest another possibility. That those same market forces that push down wages/employment help employers lower costs potentially increasing their compensation.
