Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Ray on July 27, 2013, 08:45:38 am
-
Crikey! I never thought I'd see the day when Rob C closed a thread. What is it that's so sensitive about this topic, Rob? Are you the equivalent of a modern-day Luddite? You know, those 19th century English artisans who strongly objected to labour-saving machinery.
I actually rejoice in the increasingly sophisticated mechanization of the processes of production. All civilizations have been built on a type of slavery of some sort, ie, forcing or enticing large numbers of people to submit to no-pay or low-pay drudgery. It doesn't have to be like this with modern technology. It should be technologically possible for an entire population to live a lifestyle of security, freedom, creativity and reasonable but not necessarily equal luxury, based essentially on the slavery of huge numbers of robots.
This thread has turned into a nonsense.
Egalitarian dreams built upon relatively limited supplies of personal, hands-on running of anything.
1. People are not born equally talented.
2. Pupìls in the same school, attending the same class will achieve vastly different degrees of success, despite sitting before the same teacher. Some kids are there to learn where others to disrupt and appear cooler than thou to their equally ignorant mates. The variations can and often do exist amongst kids from the same parents. I know this, from experience. It is not based on opportunity; it is based upon individual personality.
3. Employment. People find jobs because someone else needs them to perform a function for which they are, hopefully, trained. There is huge confusion in some circles about that relationship, some thinking that the employee is the person of principal value within that context. Yes, he or she can be, depending on rôle, but more often than not can be replaced whereas the entrepreneur cannot.
4. Some are born into riches and develop them further; others simply squander and often the third generation closes the business down or loses control to outside money.
5. Supply and demand is always the factor that governs the success of something, and when that product’s time is up – heavy engineering in the UK, for example, time is up, however hard it is for those once flourishing within it. It hits huge companies and even nationalised industries every bit as much as minnows such as myself. When it creased to make sense for me to plough money into stock photography, that’s the same logic that tells a government to stop backing redundant industries. That in my case it’s a part of one family that takes the hit makes it no less real a hit; that miners and shipyard workers and their families get hit is unfortunate, but they deserve no more sympathy than do I and mine. Whether it’s one or a group, the pain is the same.
6. This thread was never intended to create bitter splits in Lula, and perhaps it hasn’t: it may have just given opportunity for the usual suspects to unwind their bloodied, crimson banners another time. Either way, I’m afraid I see no further value here on this theme.
Rob C
-
And now something completely different:
A dissenting and fresh view from the uber-rich (or someone very close to the really uber-rich - Warren Buffett's son):
The Charitable-Industrial Complex (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?hpw)
-
Thanks for posting that link, SB. It does make one think.
-
Yes, that's an interesting article, Slobodan. Its sad that aid to developing nations is often not managed sensibly, does not always reach or help those in most need, and is often syphoned off by corrupt officials for their own purposes.
The bottom line as I see it is, whatever we do, whether starting a business, running a business, getting the plumbing in our house repaired, or helping poor people in undeveloped nations to raise their living standards, it should be done competently and effectively to achieved the desired outcomes. If it's not, the money, goods, services, and people's time are wasted.
However, feeling good from the mere act of giving is a reality. It is more blessed to give than to receive, is it not? ;)
In Thailand there's a daily ritual of Buddhist monks walking the streets with alms bowl in hand, or under robe. They are not begging. They are providing the opportunity to the members of the community to feel good about giving.
To take the photo attached, I had to get up really early in the morning. Thank you barking dogs for waking me early. ;D
-
Two illustrated (this is a photo forum after all :)) contributions to the debate (that are making circles on the Internet):
-
Hi Slobodan, How about defining a "living wage" for us.
Seems to me I read somewhere that the UN defined it for third-world countries as $2 a day, but according to "Investopedia" "The goal of the living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living." (emphasis added)
Does a "satisfactory standard of living" include an SUV? How about a color TV in each room in the house? How about central air conditioning?
What, exactly, is a living wage? Unless you can define it in dollars and cents there's no way to know whether or not companies are providing it. It also would help for the definition to include exactly what parts of the "living wage" are to be spent on what. If you don't specify that there's no way to know whether or not the "living wage" is being reduced to an "unliving wage" by irresponsible expenditures.
Until we have a clear definition of a "living wage" talking about it is meaningless. Isn't it?
-
Russ, I think you've been in contact with Isaac way to often, so some of his sophism and hairsplitting seems to have infected you ;)
Like pornography, you'll know it when you see it. When a welcome package to new employees includes "friendly" instruction how to apply for food stamps, you known it is not a "living wage," for instance.
-
So, in other words, you haven't a clue what a "living wage" means, but we'll know it when we see it?
In other words the term "living wage" means whatever the person using it intends it to mean. Is that Humpty Dumpty sitting there next to you, Slobodan?
-
C'mon Russ! It's pretty obvious. A living wage is that which is sufficient to provide the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
However, as a result of the varying levels of competence, knowledge and understanding that different individuals possess, a wage that one person may consider adequate to provide those essentials, may be considered as inadequate by another.
To take just one example, a person who is used to gorging herself on tasty but junk food, and eating far more than she needs, paying a premium for foods such as gourmet or connoisseur ice cream, and casually throwing away a whole carton of eggs because one of them is cracked, may find it difficult to adjust to a so-called living wage.
In my view, when people go on unemployment benefit, they should be required to attend a brief course on how to sensibly manage their minimum wage. People can be surprisingly ignorant on very basic issues. I came across a report recently that indicated that approximately 50% of all Americans are not aware that it takes one year for the earth to encircle the sun. ;)
-
Very strange. I was about to post a reply in this thread to a Pete Ferling who had made a fairly long post baring his soul, then discovered his post has disappeared without a trace. He's not only deleted his post but appears to have ceased his membership to the forum. Perhaps he was worried he'd been too frank about his background, revealing too much.
-
Very strange. I was about to post a reply in this thread to a Pete Ferling who had made a fairly long post ..
Likewise.
It was lengthy, but also eloquent and succinct, seemingly without any 'posturing'. Credit to the man.
-
+1
-
C'mon Russ! It's pretty obvious. A living wage is that which is sufficient to provide the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
However, as a result of the varying levels of competence, knowledge and understanding that different individuals possess, a wage that one person may consider adequate to provide those essentials, may be considered as inadequate by another.
To take just one example, a person who is used to gorging herself on tasty but junk food, and eating far more than she needs, paying a premium for foods such as gourmet or connoisseur ice cream, and casually throwing away a whole carton of eggs because one of them is cracked, may find it difficult to adjust to a so-called living wage.
In my view, when people go on unemployment benefit, they should be required to attend a brief course on how to sensibly manage their minimum wage. People can be surprisingly ignorant on very basic issues. I came across a report recently that indicated that approximately 50% of all Americans are not aware that it takes one year for the earth to encircle the sun. ;)
And exactly what wage is sufficient to provide the necessities of life Ray? Right after you made that statement you pointed out that what's a necessity to one person can be an extravagance to another.
I'd agree with your final paragraph, though I doubt the people who need the course would stay awake during the presentation. And if you think the fact that 50% of Americans aren't aware that it takes a year for the earth to go around the sun, consider that probably 80% haven't a clue how many branches of government we have, much less what their names are and what they're supposed to do. Seems to me I remember a survey of college students that showed 50% of them had no idea what country is south of the U.S. All of these people vote. Think that might be a problem?
-
And exactly what wage is sufficient to provide the necessities of life Ray? Right after you made that statement you pointed out that what's a necessity to one person can be an extravagance to another.
I'd agree with your final paragraph, though I doubt the people who need the course would stay awake during the presentation. And if you think the fact that 50% of Americans aren't aware that it takes a year for the earth to go around the sun, consider that probably 80% haven't a clue how many branches of government we have, much less what their names are and what they're supposed to do. Seems to me I remember a survey of college students that showed 50% of them had no idea what country is south of the U.S. All of these people vote. Think that might be a problem?
and how is that related to your son not providing a medical insurance to his employees ? yawn.
-
Who said he doesn't? Vlad, you need to learn to read more carefully.
-
And exactly what wage is sufficient to provide the necessities of life Ray?
Russ,
A wage which is determined from an analysis of the average cost of food in the particular country, the cost of modest accommodation, and the general cost of living. Such wages and benefits, once established, are usually indexed to the inflation rate.
In the Lucky Country, civilized Australia, the maximum unemployment rate for a single person without family is close to $500 per fortnight. In addition to that, an unemployed single person living in rental premises could receive up to another $123 per fortnight rental assistance. All medical services, including dental treatment, would also be free for the unemployed.
Those with a bit of nous may be able to use some of their spare time, when not looking for a job, to make such payments stretch further, especially if their house has a garden. They could try growing a few vegetables, for example. ;D
-
So what you're saying is that what constitutes a wage "sufficient to provide the necessities of life" depends on a political decision.
Strikes me that whether or not an employee is making a "living wage" depends on whether or not the employee is able to live. If he can't, then he has two choices: die, or find another job.
People here in the U.S., living in the kind of luxury experienced even by those below the "poverty threshold," as defined in the U.S. by the department of Health and Human Services, get all bent out of shape about what they consider a "non-living" wage in countries they've never been in and have absolutely no conception of. When I hear somebody bleating about a "living wage" it almost always turns out that the bleater either is an over-educated college kid with not the faintest clue what poverty actually is, or somebody tooting a left-wing propaganda line for political reasons.
-
...When I hear somebody bleating about a "living wage" it almost always turns out that the bleater either is an over-educated college kid with not the faintest clue what poverty actually is, or somebody tooting a left-wing propaganda line for political reasons.
And Costco CEO fits where?
-
...he has two choices: die, or find another job...
Excellent summary, Russ! *
And given the abundance of the latter, the former seems like a no-brainer (or would it be a blow-brainer?)
* That would be sarcasm, Russ, but I am sure you have no trouble recognizing it ;)
-
And Costco CEO fits where?
Come on Slobodan. You supposedly know enough about economics to understand that raising the minimum wage doesn't result in a "living wage." What it results in is less people making a wage at all. It never ceases to amaze me how many people think the laws of economics are elastic. Even most of the politicians who come across with this crap don't really believe what they're saying. They know better, but telling the truth doesn't boost their reelection prospects.
-
Further to the "living wage" discussion and the axioms "die or find another job" and "low wage is better than no wage":
Apple investigates new claims of China factory staff mistreatment (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/29/apple-investugates-claims-china-factory)
From the article:
The iPhone and iPad maker is accused of breaching its promise to improve working conditions after the Foxconn revelations by using another supplier alleged to have broken 86 labour laws, including forcing pregnant women to work 11 hours a day, six days a week, standing up.
And why would they (women) do that:
It said the average hourly wage of Pegatron workers making Apple products is no more than $1.50 (£0.98) an hour, which it claims is not enough to live on and effectively forces staff to work overtime to earn a living wage.
Or give a brand new meaning to the bring-your-daughter-to-work day:
Pegatron employs workers under 18 – breaching both Chinese law and Apple's strict employment code. "Underage workers often enter the factories as student 'interns' required to work at factories by vocational schools,"
-
And given the abundance of the latter. . .
No crap, Slobodan. So that's why we need to get more people up here from Mexico -- the lack of jobs?
-
Come on Slobodan. You supposedly know enough about economics to understand that raising the minimum wage doesn't result in a "living wage." What it results in is less people able to work at all.
I guess that is why your well-meaning Republican friends are hell-bent on repealing minimum-wage and child-labor laws? To make everyone's life better?
-
Which Republican is that who wants to repeal child labor laws? Give me a name. Fish or cut bait.
-
Apple investigates new claims of China factory staff mistreatment (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/29/apple-investugates-claims-china-factory)
From the article:
And why would they (women) do that:
Or give a brand new meaning to the bring-your-daughter-to-work day:
Golly, you don't suppose China might be a communist country?
-
Which Republican is that who wants to repeal child labor laws? Give me a name. Fish or cut bait.
The presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.
-
Golly, you don't suppose China might be a communist country?
The gist of my postings is about Apple, an American company, who moved its business to China precisely because they couldn't treat American workers the same.
-
Okay, give me a reference to the place where Gingrich said he wanted to repeal child labor laws.
-
Okay, give me a reference to the place where Gingrich said he wanted to repeal child labor laws.
Newt Gingrich: Child labor laws 'truly stupid' (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/21/news/la-pn-gingrich-child-labor-20111121)
Gingrich stands by anti-child labor law comments (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/01/gingrich-stands-by-anti-child-labor-law-comments/)
-
The gist of my postings is about Apple, an American company, who moved its business to China precisely because they couldn't treat American workers the same.
Apple has done some stupid stuff, but before you conclude that their operation in China is causing women and kids terminal grief, tell me how many of these people would starve -- actually die, or at least be worse off -- if they didn't have this kind of work. It's another example of what I was talking about earlier when I said that people try to project their own environment onto others they know nothing about. And I'm not taking Apple's side. I've never been happy with Apple's operation -- ever since, in 1977 when I was faced with a choice between the TRS-80 and the Apple 1.
-
Somebody...please....lock this thread. The usual suspects can't help themselves, as usual.
-
Newt Gingrich: Child labor laws 'truly stupid' (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/21/news/la-pn-gingrich-child-labor-20111121)
Gingrich stands by anti-child labor law comments (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/01/gingrich-stands-by-anti-child-labor-law-comments/)
Ah. . . What he said was: Speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the Republican presidential candidate and former speaker of the House challenged laws that prevent children from working certain jobs before their mid-teens.
That's not going to cut it, Slobodan. Gingrich wasn't suggesting we put girls back to work in fabric mills or boys back to work as coal breakers. What he was suggesting is that kids can learn something about the working world by working. I'm with him 100%. When I was a teen I delivered newspapers. Later on I worked in a refreshment stand at the Detroit Zoo. Both jobs gave me an understanding of what it's like to deal with the public and also taught me that it's important to show up on time. Nowadays kids don't have opportunities like that. The bleeding hearts who have taken over are convinced that any sort of labor for a teen is slavery.
-
... When I was a teen I delivered newspapers...
Knocking on the open door, Russ?
The nation's federal Fair Labor Standards Act sets 14 as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work, though states can pass stricter laws.
The federal act allows youngsters of any age to "deliver newspapers; perform in radio, television, movie or theatrical productions; work in businesses owned by their parents with the exception of mining, manufacturing or hazardous job." They can also babysit , perform "minor chores" around a private home, and "gather evergreens and make evergreen wreaths."
As for what your buddies are really after (in terms of child labor), Apple, Nike at al are showing us in the third-world countries.
Republican wet dream: unlimited supply of babies (anti-abortion), working at any age for any wage? ;)
-
Well, Slobodan, I'll have to hand it to you: you've learned the left-wing catechism verbatim and you can parrot it without having to check your notes. Impressive!
-
Well, Slobodan, I'll have to hand it to you: you've learned the left-wing catechism verbatim and you can parrot it without having to check your notes. Impressive!
Another example of false dichotomies Bernard was talking about in another thread. Challenging right-wing views does not necessarily make me left-wing, does it? Or vice versa - just ask Stamper (i.e., how many times I challenged his). I like to think of myself as independent and tend to align myself with issues, rather than party lines (I am with Republicans on death penalty, for instance).
-
Challenging right-wing views does not necessarily make me left-wing, does it?
Of course not, but spouting views that come right out of the left-wing catechism at least gives that appearance.
-
I see a confusion here between the concept of a minimum wage that an employer must pay to an adult worker, and the minimum amount of money, unemployment compensation, or government-funded benefits, that an adult requires in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle in sheltered accommodation, free from starvation, undernourishment or unattended medical problems.
I find it revealing that the unemployment benefits in Australia, for a single person, are about equal to the average minimum wage in the USA of $7.25 per hour, as applied to a 40 hour week.
The minimum wage in Australia is currently over $16 per hour. Since the Australian dollar, in terms of international exchange rates, has approximately equal value to the US dollar, this difference in minimum wage highlights the differences in the costs of living in the two countries.
Most things seem to be cheaper in the USA, especially Adobe Photoshop. ;)
-
The federal act allows youngsters of any age to "deliver newspapers; perform in radio, television, movie or theatrical productions; work in businesses owned by their parents with the exception of mining, manufacturing or hazardous job." They can also babysit , perform "minor chores" around a private home, and "gather evergreens and make evergreen wreaths."
How nice, Slobodan. When was the last time you saw a kid delivering newspapers? There are two reasons why the answer is "not since I can remember.": First, our society has become coarse enough and dangerous enough that no parent in his right mind would allow a kid to deliver newspapers. Second, the "living wage" bleeding hearts and "minimum wage" ignoramuses want to see newspaper deliverers receive a "living wage." As a result, newspapers have started hiring companies that deliver all the various newspapers in their areas, hire adults, and load them down with many hundreds of papers to deliver each day.
It's really nice that kids can babysit, perform "minor chores" around the house (they'd better!) and gather evergreens and make evergreen wreaths, but that's not the same thing as learning what a job is like.
-
How nice, Slobodan. When was the last time you saw a kid delivering newspapers? There are two reasons why the answer is "not since I can remember.": First, our society has become coarse enough and dangerous enough that no parent in his right mind would allow a kid to deliver newspapers...
But that surely has nothing to do with the "stupid" child labor legislation, does it now?
...Second, the "living wage" bleeding hearts and "minimum wage" ignoramuses want to see newspaper deliverers receive a "living wage." ...
C'mon Russ, who has ever requested "living wage" for kids!?
...As a result, newspapers have started hiring companies that deliver all the various newspapers in their areas, hire adults...
As a result of what? As a result of non-existing "requests for living wage for kids"? Or as a result of that "our society has become coarse enough and dangerous enough that no parent in his right mind would allow a kid to deliver newspapers"?
...that's not the same thing as learning what a job is like.
So, if paper delivery is too dangerous, what exactly would you want them to do? School janitors (as per Newt)? Factory workers?
-
Speaking of minimum wage, this article may be relevant here: Why McDonald's Employee Budget Has Everyone Up In Arms/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/).
-
But that surely has nothing to do with the "stupid" child labor legislation, does it now?
Where did I say that child labor laws are "stupid," Slobodan? Have you ever looked at Lewis Hine's photographs -- the ones he risked his neck to get -- of little girls working in fabric mills and little boys working as coal breakers? I'm very much in favor of reasonable child labor laws, but that's not the kind of child labor laws we're talking about.
C'mon Russ, who has ever requested "living wage" for kids!?
Of course not. That's an exaggeration. But what's happened to child labor laws since Hine managed to get them enacted is that bleeding hearts who never did a lick of work as children see any kid under eighteen at paying work as being oppressed. What started out as reasonable child labor laws have become corrupted to the point where kids can't learn about work in the adult world before they have to enter it to survive.
So, if paper delivery is too dangerous, what exactly would you want them to do? School janitors (as per Newt)? Factory workers?
Newt has a habit of becoming entranced at the sound of his own voice and going overboard, but I don't see a problem with kids doing routine cleanup in schools. I wouldn't want to see them doing adult work such as heating system maintenance, but sweeping halls and cleaning bathrooms aren't exactly dangerous or overly demanding jobs. And yes, there are factory jobs kids can do. Depends on what the factory is making.
-
It certainly is puzzling to many of us from other Western democratic nations, that a strong and rich country like the USA seems to have such a poor safety net for the disadvantaged and the vulnerable.
I suppose the rationale for keeping minimum wages so low is to keep the prices of goods and services low. I was amazed to discover that the minimum wage for a waiter in a restaurant, in certain states of America, is as low as $2.13 per hour. I now understand the stories I've heard that failing to tip a waiter in America can be dangerous. The next time you visit the restaurant, the waiter might piss in your beer. ;)
-
Right, Ray. And there's no doubt that high minimum wages in other Western nations (Greece comes to mind) accounts for their rapidly improving economies.
-
Regarding our "low" minimum wage I have one question: if, say, $10/hr is a "fairer" minimum wage than, say, $8/hr, why not make the minimum wage $110/hr. Wouldn't that be even fairer? That's what I used to charge when I was doing software engineering, and I was charging less than most of my competition. Why shouldn't a McDonald's employee enjoy the same benefits? After all, he's working just as hard -- in fact, from a physical point of view, harder.
There are two sides to any wage situation: the value (pay) the employee gets from his labor and the value (productivity) the employer gets from the employee's labor. If the second value isn't at least a bit more than the first, the job has to disappear. There's no free lunch, and anybody who thinks he can violate the inviolable laws of economics is in for a lesson in economics. Of course politicians are always exempt from lessons in economics.
-
Where did I say that child labor laws are "stupid," Slobodan?...
Correct, not your words, but Newt's. However, you said you agree with him "100%" so...
... any kid under eighteen...
Actually, as I posted before, "the nation's federal Fair Labor Standards Act sets 14 as the minimum age."
-
Right, Ray. And there's no doubt that high minimum wages in other Western nations (Greece comes to mind) accounts for their rapidly improving economies.
Russ,
From my rational perspective I see the causes of these economic collapses in certain countries as being more to do with incompetent, corrupt, unethical and deceptive practices among bankers and financial institutions, rather than minimum wages that are too high.
The most glaring example of this, which presumably was just the tip of the iceberg, was the practice of lending money to people for the purpose of buying a house, despite the fact that many such borrowers had no reasonable expectation of being able to repay the loans.
Now, as I understand, the rationale for this practice was based upon an assumption that property prices would continue to rise. If or when the debtor defaulted on his loan repayments, the bank could repossess a property which had hopefully risen in value since the loan was issued. Is this correct?
Regarding our "low" minimum wage I have one question: if, say, $10/hr is a "fairer" minimum wage than, say, $8/hr, why not make the minimum wage $110/hr. Wouldn't that be even fairer? That's what I used to charge when I was doing software engineering, and I was charging less than most of my competition. Why shouldn't a McDonald's employee enjoy the same benefits? After all, he's working just as hard -- in fact, from a physical point of view, harder.
Russ, it's not the numerical value of the wage that counts, but what it can buy. If the minimum wage is not sufficient to pay for the requirements of a basic lifestyle, then something is seriously wrong with the system. If people get into trouble, such as the lady in the McDonald's story who had her first child whilst still at school, then accumulated 3 more without a permanent husband, then the social services need to step in, if the minimum wage is not sufficient to provide for the children.
I'm not claiming that the minimum wage should be sufficient for an unmarried mother with four children to provide for all the necessities in life. In that sense, the McDonald's story was not particularly convincing, and seemed designed more to pull at the heart strings.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/19/how-she-lives-on-minimum-wage-one-mcdonalds-workers-budget/3/
-
Russ,
From my rational perspective I see the causes of these economic collapses in certain countries as being more to do with incompetent, corrupt, unethical and deceptive practices among bankers and financial institutions, rather than minimum wages that are too high.
I 'd say they pay too much benefits/pension/etc for gov't employees and retirees... that also is applicable to USA, any such benefits from federal/stage gov't (no matter which dept) here shall be cancelled and everybody moved to a regular SS/Medicare.
-
I'd say that most of our economic problems, whatever our country, are due to sheer incompetence at every level, Governmental, institutional and individual.
We think that feeding an increasing world population might be beyond the planet's resources, yet the world currently wastes about 1.3 billion tonnes of food annually. America alone discards about $43 billion worth of processed food every year. That is, food that is considered to be inedible because it has passed its 'use-by' or' best-by' date, or food that is not eaten because people are too picky or choosy, or because the restaurant has provided too big a serve.
Food is wasted, or used as animal fodder, because it doesn't meet the standards of flawless appearance that many individual consumers seem to demand. Food is often processed in a similar way, conceptually, to Hasselblad's production of its recent compact Lunar camera. That is, take a perfectly nutritious Sony NEX-7, enhance its appearance, attempt to make it tasty, then sell it for 4x the price.
In fact, the food industry is even more ludicrous than Hasselblad. At least the Lunar is a fully functional NEX-7. The processing of food to enhance its appearance and taste usually results in a degrading of nutritional value, through the addition of artificial flavouring, preservatives, fructose, salt etc, and the removal of valuable fibre.
In addition to this enormous wastage of food, the individual tends to simply eat too much. About 65% of all Americans are overweight, and about half of those are actually obese. The consequences of such overeating are increased medical costs, eventually. I haven't got any figures for the total quantity of food that is overeaten, that results in the varying degrees of obesity, but add that to the 1.3 billion tonnes of known waste, and you might end up with a figure of 2 billion tonnes or more. It would be impossible to calculate the additional cost of medical care that results from the hedonistic pleasures of overeating, but I'm sure they would be considerable.
I see all this as incompetence at the individual level.
-
We think that feeding an increasing world population might be beyond the planet's resources, …
Food is wasted, or used as animal fodder,
It is more about sustaining an increasing world population. As in: everybody is entitled to a warm shelter generally designated as "a home". But can we provide such basic entitlements at the current rate of growth and waste of resources? (Food being just one of those.)
As for wasting food. As you already pointed out: most overdate food goes to animal fodder, which means we will eventually be eating it one way or another anyway.
-
We think that feeding an increasing world population might be beyond the planet's resources,
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/2013/07/24/whats-stopping-us-from-eating-insects/
-
From my rational perspective I see the causes of these economic collapses in certain countries as being more to do with incompetent, corrupt, unethical and deceptive practices among bankers and financial institutions, rather than minimum wages that are too high.
The most glaring example of this, which presumably was just the tip of the iceberg, was the practice of lending money to people for the purpose of buying a house, despite the fact that many such borrowers had no reasonable expectation of being able to repay the loans.
Now, as I understand, the rationale for this practice was based upon an assumption that property prices would continue to rise. If or when the debtor defaulted on his loan repayments, the bank could repossess a property which had hopefully risen in value since the loan was issued. Is this correct?
Got to go up the mountain to the goldfields this morning to shoot some pictures, so I haven't time to go into detail, but:
I see the causes of these economic collapses as politicians making economic decisions and distorting markets. When politicians make economic decisions they're playing with other people's money, and, as Maggie said, "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money" and things fall apart. Setting a minimum wage, by the way, is an economic decision made by politicians.
The crash -- at least here in the United States -- came from politicians, specifically two senators who managed to convince a majority of Democrats in our Senate that minorities and poor people weren't getting a fair shake from the country's lenders. They put into practice a quota system that required lending agencies to make loans to people who obviously couldn't repay the loans. There's a lot more to it than that: securitization of the bad loans and a government edict that let banks treat such crappy paper as secure investments to name just two, but that was the proximate cause. I'm not suggesting there weren't some greedy, incompetent and corrupt lenders involved. There always are, but even the honest lenders were forced by our politicians to do things they knew they shouldn't be doing.
For some enlightenment about how greed can work to help an economy you might want to sit down and read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Adam was well aware of the fact that people can be greedy and corrupt, by the way.
-
Setting a minimum wage, by the way, is an economic decision made by politicians.
true, so are your retirement benefits... do not forget that.
-
It is more about sustaining an increasing world population. As in: everybody is entitled to a warm shelter generally designated as "a home". But can we provide such basic entitlements at the current rate of growth and waste of resources? (Food being just one of those.)
I see two separate questions here. (1) Is it technologically feasible to provide such basic requirements for an increasing population, and (2) Is it politically feasible, considering the incompetence, ineptitude and corruption of governments and individuals which result in enormous waste and inefficient practices at all levels?
There's no doubt in my mind that it is technologically feasible to sustain a considerably larger population than the current 7 billion. And, as you probably already know, providing wealth and security for people tends to reduce their motivation to produce large families.
We are limited only by our energy supplies and our imagination. Whilst reserves of fossil fuels are obviously limited, it will be a long time before the sun stops shining. If the uninhabited part of the Sahara desert, approximately 9 million square kilometres, were covered entirely with modern solar voltaic panels, the amount of electricity generated would be over 20x the current world energy usage, including all current oil and gas usage, converted to kWh, plus all electricity produced from whatever source.
I believe the latest developments in HVDC transmission (High Voltage Direct Current) are at the stage where only a 2% loss in energy is possiblet for every 10,000km of transmission, although loss rates for current existing HVDC lines are greater than this.
As for wasting food. As you already pointed out: most overdate food goes to animal fodder, which means we will eventually be eating it one way or another anyway.
I don't have any information on the percentage of wasted food that is fed to cattle and pigs, as opposed to landfill and compost use, but it's a terribly inefficient process to prepare food for humans then feed it to animals. I've seen estimates that 16 kg of grain and soybeans is required to produce just 1 kg of meat.
However, again there is no insurmountable technological problem in providing food for a much larger population than 7 billion. Permaculture practices can increase the food yield per acre of land fourfold, whilst simultaneously increasing the fertility of the soil, resulting in greater storage of carbon in the soil, which would consequently reduce any climate change problems that may result from our CO2 emissions.
Problems solved. ;D
-
Got to go up the mountain to the goldfields this morning to shoot some pictures, so I haven't time to go into detail, but:
I see the causes of these economic collapses as politicians making economic decisions and distorting markets. When politicians make economic decisions they're playing with other people's money, and, as Maggie said, "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money" and things fall apart. Setting a minimum wage, by the way, is an economic decision made by politicians.
The crash -- at least here in the United States -- came from politicians, specifically two senators who managed to convince a majority of Democrats in our Senate that minorities and poor people weren't getting a fair shake from the country's lenders. They put into practice a quota system that required lending agencies to make loans to people who obviously couldn't repay the loans. There's a lot more to it than that: securitization of the bad loans and a government edict that let banks treat such crappy paper as secure investments to name just two, but that was the proximate cause. I'm not suggesting there weren't some greedy, incompetent and corrupt lenders involved. There always are, but even the honest lenders were forced by our politicians to do things they knew they shouldn't be doing.
For some enlightenment about how greed can work to help an economy you might want to sit down and read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Adam was well aware of the fact that people can be greedy and corrupt, by the way.
The problem with a minimum wage as I see it is that it's inflationary, and thus only productive until the market for goods "adjusts" to the new wage standard. So while I don't believe that it's generally true that increasing the minimum wage will automatically result in layoffs, it WILL result, by definition, in higher operational costs which necessitate EITHER a cutting of resources (i.e. employees) OR an increase in prices. Prices go up, then even with the increased wage the worker is really just as stasis, and then the whole cycle repeats itself.
As for your contention that the CRA was the proximate cause of the housing crisis, no, it wasn't, though the right seems to really, really really want to believe it. If you could point me to the law specifying a quota on making bad loans, I'd appreciate it, because it's not in the CRA.
-
.... So while I don't believe that it's generally true that increasing the minimum wage will automatically result in layoffs, it WILL result, by definition, in higher operational costs which necessitate EITHER a cutting of resources (i.e. employees) OR an increase in prices...
You forgot the third option: profit reduction.
-
I see two separate questions here. (1) Is it technologically feasible to provide such basic requirements for an increasing population, and (2) Is it politically feasible, considering the incompetence, ineptitude and corruption of governments and individuals which result in enormous waste and inefficient practices at all levels?
There's no doubt in my mind that it is technologically feasible to sustain a considerably larger population than the current 7 billion. And, as you probably already know, providing wealth and security for people tends to reduce their motivation to produce large families.
I agree. I also have no doubt about the technological feasibility. But I do have a doubt about the sociological feasibility.
What is the meaning of life for an increasing population if all they do is either fight each other for resources, or being busy inventing ever more clever ways to sustain more individuals for which you don't care to begin with?
You see, I think one of the most important aspects of our life here on earth is our connection to other people, and the way we affect them and thereby ourselves. The "stuff" that forms our character so to speak. If this experience here on earth has some greater goal or is some kind of transition to a different state, then clearly "enough" people should be able to experience this life on earth in order to achieve that greater goal or transition. But that greater goal or transition only has meaning if we can give it its true meaning here on earth. i.e. people need to be able to live a decent and fulfilling life that allows them to connect meaningfully with other people they care about.
So, you can have 10bln people that don't give a shit, or 1bln people that do. Considering that time doesn't care, we might prefer to have 10 generations of 1bln people living meaningful lifes, as opposed to 1 generation of 10bln that crash the planet. Again, time doesn't care. If those 10bln people f**k up life as we know it, evolution will simply come up with a better suited form of life in a couple million years...
-
You forgot the third option: profit reduction.
But the profit ratio to goods created and sold is sacrosanct to most employers? ;)
-
You forgot the third option: profit reduction.
I didn't forget it, but I did omit it. It is, of course an option, I'm just not sure it's a likely option when either of the other two are "paths of least resistance," at least for the shortsighted (and in the case of a public company, for those with an eye on the stock price and short-medium term shareholder returns).
-
But the profit ratio to goods created and sold is sacrosanct to most employers? ;)
And that's the problem... I don't necessarily AGREE with that outlook, but I do acknowledge the reality of it, for a number of reasons.
-
I didn't forget it, but I did omit it. It is, of course an option, I'm just not sure it's a likely option when either of the other two are "paths of least resistance,"...
Only if you have inelastic demand, i.e., where price increases have small effect on the demand. Generally, it is not that easy to pass your cost increase to consumers.
As an anecdotal evidence, when I had to increase salaries of our consultants (granted, not minimum-wage employees, but the point is still valid), I could not possibly turn to our customers and ask them to pay us a higher hourly rate just because we raise their salaries. (unless other circumstances allowed us to). Over time, as our consultants gathered more experience, we were able to move them into a higher-rate category, but the connection between their annual salary increases and the rates we charge our customers was never a simple and direct one. And yes, that meant that every salary increase was a profit reduction for us, at least short-term, and for some consultants it was longer-term than for others.
One of the contribution I made in running that company is fighting that mentality Stamper was referring to (e.g., that profit margin (rate) per consultant is somehow "sacrosanct"). Prior management was known to turn down projects if the profit margin was not up to their satisfaction, an approach that almost ran the company into the ground. I believe in a marginal profit concept (as opposed to profit rate) , i.e., you should keep doing what you are doing, as long as your marginal profit exceeds your marginal cost. Marginal profit defined, for the purpose of this example, as the increase in overall company profit (not per consultant) due to the use of a consultant. Or, to simplify, as long as my consultant is bringing in any profit, it is worth paying him more to stay.
-
true, so are your retirement benefits... do not forget that.
? You lost me again, Vlad. Sorry. Maybe that would make sense in Russian. Doesn't make sense in English.
-
You forgot the third option: profit reduction.
Profit reduction = corporate suicide. Get real, SLOBO...intentional profit reduction is not an option.
The opportunity for, and the allure of great profit and wealth is the driving force behind EVERY meaningful advance in technology, every great era of innovation, progress and higher living standards.
Wake up and smell the borscht.
-
Yes, that's an interesting article, Slobodan. Its sad that aid to developing nations is often not managed sensibly, does not always reach or help those in most need, and is often syphoned off by corrupt officials for their own purposes.
Aid was once described as a means of transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. Sadly, it's close to the truth.
Jeremy
-
Quote Mezzoduomo.
The opportunity for, and the allure of great profit and wealth is the driving force behind EVERY meaningful advance in technology.
Unquote
The Russians managed to put somebody in space ahead of the Americans without resorting to the profit motive so methinks the word EVERY is misplaced? ;)
BTW do a search for medicines not produced for profit....... such as penicillin.
-
Quote Mezzoduomo.
The opportunity for, and the allure of great profit and wealth is the driving force behind EVERY meaningful advance in technology.
Unquote
The Russians managed to put somebody in space ahead of the Americans without resorting to the profit motive so methinks the word EVERY is misplaced? ;)
BTW do a search for medicines not produced for profit....... such as penicillin.
Ok, stamper....I do indeed stand (somewhat) corrected. I must concede that there are some accidental advances (penicillin) and some that have pure megalomania or political (religious?) power as their driving force. Can you give me 'most' or 'many', since 'every' won't pass muster? ;D
-
The accidental phrase is actually true because Alexander Fleming left some mould on a window shelf which lead to the discovery of penicillin. There are too many instances of people discovering things without working for profit to research and list. Most of them were decades ago and nowadays venture capitalists fund research as well as companies. The medical companies know how to screw the public to get a return and enrich themselves.
-
This kind of "private enterprise is better than public funded" is a tired old debate that outlived its usefulness long ago. Yes, competing cell phone manufacturers gave us really cheap tiny phones, blah, blah, isn't that great. So what. It was publicly funded physics graduate students doing boring and mostly forgotten detailed research in the 1920s-1950s that created the field of solid state physics, from which all the electronics revolution stems. Finding examples of some trinket or other or some accomplishment or other to prove one side or the other is as pointless as it is boring.
-
The accidental phrase is actually true because Alexander Fleming left some mould on a window shelf which lead to the discovery of penicillin. There are too many instances of people discovering things without working for profit to research and list. Most of them were decades ago and nowadays venture capitalists fund research as well as companies. The medical companies know how to screw the public to get a return and enrich themselves.
Yet again, stamper, you're electing to confuse two wholly separate matters. Fleming discovered penicillin by accident. It was developed into a usable antibiotic, and its successors were found or designed, because of a combination of altruism and a desire for profit. Facile vitriol against drug companies which have been responsible for spectacular advances in the treatment of disease is an easy position to adopt but it's meaningless nevertheless.
Jeremy
-
Denying dying people drugs because they are too expensive should horrify reasonable people. Luckily in Scotland, at least, you get free prescriptions which are available to all. Patents mean the companies can continue to charge what the wish for decades making them rich while people with little or no money suffer. Whose side Kikashi are you on? Do you benefit from free prescriptions or do you pay the full whack and thank them for it?
-
Yet again, stamper, you're electing to confuse two wholly separate matters. Fleming discovered penicillin by accident. It was developed into a usable antibiotic, and its successors were found or designed, because of a combination of altruism and a desire for profit. Facile vitriol against drug companies which have been responsible for spectacular advances in the treatment of disease is an easy position to adopt but it's meaningless nevertheless.
Jeremy
"drug companies" shall not forget they operate because they have support of the society (in form of protection of their interests, creating an infrastructure that allows them operate, etc)... so some reasonable cooperation is expected on both sides
-
Yes, competing cell phone manufacturers gave us really cheap tiny phones
that's not only because of the competition, but also because there is a cheap labor overseas...
-
The Russians managed to put somebody in space ahead of the Americans
and both sides owe much to Nazis :D ...
-
Denying dying people drugs because they are too expensive should horrify reasonable people. Luckily in Scotland, at least, you get free prescriptions which are available to all. Patents mean the companies can continue to charge what the wish for decades making them rich while people with little or no money suffer. Whose side Kikashi are you on? Do you benefit from free prescriptions or do you pay the full whack and thank them for it?
I don't believe you have any idea how much it costs to develop a drug from scratch (or even from another drug), test it in the laboratory, test it for safety on selected people and then field test it for effectiveness; or that you have any idea how many drugs, after millions of pounds have been spent on them, simply fail to do the job they were designed for at adequate safety. If, as you seem to imagine appropriate, you prevent companies from making profits on those drugs which do get to market, you will have no research, no development and no new drugs. Try to keep in touch with reality: nobody in the UK suffers because any drug which can be shown to be reasonably effective is made available for minimal charge, waived very readily if appropriate.
I am on the side of advanced and well-funded research, to allow new drugs to be developed. What's your bright idea? State funding? No doubt effective state-sponsored research accounts for the deluge of new and effective drugs emerging from China and Russia.
As to prescriptions,I usually write my own: I find it saves my time (and my GP's).
Jeremy
-
I don't know how much it takes to produce a drug and I am 99% sure you don't either. What is however in the public domain is the profit the companies make and they are usually mind boggling. What large pharmaceutical last went out of business? Any altruism from them it usually to make them look good and take people's minds of their profits. The NHS pays for a lot of the profits and that in the end is taxpayer's money. I hope you are happy to foot the bill? ;)
-
Stamper, The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion. You could look it up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/.
And for insight into the terminal stages of a socialist government, check Detroit, Michigan. It's a classic illustration of what happens when a government runs out of other people's money.
-
I don't see any objection to companies making a profit from the production of useful goods and services, as long as they pay a decent minimum wage. If they don't pay a decent minimum wage, then their practices are tantamount to slavery, which we all know is illegal, or certainly should be.
I'm not aware of any economic crisis being caused by minimum wages that are too high. Rather, the causes of all economic crashes, it seems to me, involve irrational behaviour motivated by greed.
In the early 17th century their was the Dutch Tulip economic bubble. The tulip was an exotic flower imported form Turkey and was different from from every other flower known in Europe at the time. It became a status symbol which just happened to coincide with an increase in the general prosperity of the Dutch people, through their increase in trade at that time.
Here's an extract from Wikipedia which describes the total absurdity of that situation.
The growing popularity of tulips in the early 17th century caught the attention of the entire nation; "the population, even to its lowest dregs, embarked in the tulip trade". By 1635, a sale of 40 bulbs for 100,000 florins (also known as Dutch guilders) was recorded. By way of comparison, a ton of butter cost around 100 florins, a skilled laborer might earn 150 florins a year, and "eight fat swine" cost 240 florins. (According to the International Institute of Social History, one florin had the purchasing power of €10.28 in 2002.
Likewise, in the build-up to the 1929 stock market crash in America, there was an irrational notion that the stock market could continue to rise indefinitely, allowing people to become rich without working. Brokers began routinely lending money to small investors, and often those borrowed amounts were more than two-thirds of the face value of the stocks they were buying.
This all seems to me to be remarkably similar to our current GFC. People were loaned money to buy houses, commodities and investments of various types, on the irrational assumption that such items would continue to rise in value indefinitely. This is essentially the concept of the 'free lunch', which we all know in reality does not exist. Someone always has pay for it.
-
Stamper, The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion. You could look it up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/.
you sources are as good as Colin Powell's when he ashamed himself on UN stand with WMD tale
-
No doubt effective state-sponsored research accounts for the deluge of new and effective drugs emerging from China and Russia.
you probably know that such funding (for civilian purposes) was quite miniscule, practically absent, hence the results... but bioweapons when he funding was in place ;)
-
you sources are as good as Colin Powell's when he ashamed himself on UN stand with WMD tale
My source is "InnoThink Center For Research In Biomedical Innovation; Thomson Reuters Fundamentals via FactSet Research Systems." If you have a better one, let's have it.
Oh, and as I said on a different thread, Colin's "bad" sources were all of the free world's intelligence agencies. If you were in Russia at the time you might have had a more accurate source, Vlad.