Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1
    ∞ Infinite Possibility ∞ FireclawX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Infinity of Possibility
    Posts
    7,366
    Blog Entries
    16

    Let's talk about socioeconomic policies

    Follow the forum rules and stuff.

    MAL
    http://i.imgur.com/epGEQ5A.png
    ~Awesome sig by Nelkk~
    "I believe in god. A god called possibility, that resides in all of us."

  2. The Following 2 Users Like This Post:


  3. #2
    ∞ Infinite Possibility ∞ FireclawX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Infinity of Possibility
    Posts
    7,366
    Blog Entries
    16
    To resume the discussion from GAD.

    Quote Originally Posted by twinshia View Post
    It is unequal because there are people who own industry and those who work in it.
    This is not an incorrect situation.



    At the risk of economic instability, though.





    There is no slavery happening if the person enters a contract.
    If they do not fulfill the contract then that is damages.
    The Unions may have provided a "reasonable" pay for workers (still missing a definition),
    but because of that there is no cap on how high the "reasonable" can go.
    The purpose of an industry is to produce a product,
    not to cater for the needs of individuals who are in the position they are in because they are not in possession of wealth.
    A Union is a farce, regardless of your sentimental stories.



    Which is correct. The amount of profit increases but the liabilities remain the same or decrease.
    The rate of profit increases the amount of tax received which balances government debt accumulated through inevitable (but hopefully not frivolous) public spending.



    Speculation.
    Luxury items for the rich make up for this, even if it is so.



    The tax breaks are perhaps stupid,
    but consider that many business owners leave countries as a result of high taxation and you can understand why this may be important.



    Please provide some sort of citation or evidence for this.
    I am under the impression that this is not the case.



    Which is taxed.



    This is not necessarily true.



    Neither is this.
    You just do not seem to believe that companies go bankrupt.
    I understand that for some thing to be bought people need to have money,
    but if people are working then people do have money and when you are working class you spend less than those in the middle class,
    but the difference is more miniscule than you think.

    The debt that has been accumulated in the US is partially due to a massive military spending and as a result of corporatism.
    Not only that, you said yourself the system in the US was not flawed in comparison to Japan,
    which I was not in complete disagreement with,
    but now you seem to think the US government should adopt the same policies as the EU.

    What you will see is what I see now in my country.
    Thousands of people with fake money and fake degrees, unemployed because there are no businesses to enter with their PhD in cash register studies.

    Also, marxist demagogues can be and generally are much more "corrupt" than capitalist fat cats, in my humble opinion.
    Every single head in the European parliament is a parasite.
    And they of course have their own unions to make sure their pay increases for doing nothing at all.
    At least the fat cats provide jobs, products and services.
    The public sector does not produce physical objects, machines or food,
    or if it does, I have never seen it.

    The reason why fat cats don't have unions is because they organised or inherited the system in the first place.
    Excessive laws are in essence plundering,
    and as I like to say intervention where it is not absolutely necessary dilutes the sincerity of the laws that are already in place.

    Also increasing minimum wage in order to massage spending makes little sense,
    as the amount increased will also be decreased from the companies profit,
    thereby decreasing taxation and thus balancing or possibly decreasing the tax return,
    not to mention that which you so courageously deny the existence of, bankruptcy.



    Move to Poland or Slovenia or Southern Italy or East Berlin or North Dublin et cetera.
    The only reason you can agree with this is because you do not know the reality of it.
    There is no time to agree with some thing just because it resonates with you emotionally.
    I'm not agreeing due to some emotional bias. The situation I described with Social Security is happening where I live in the USA right now. Our country is trillions of dollars in debt, and the global economy has barely recovered from recession. While yes, the trillions of dollars are partially due to military spending (blame the military industrial complex and their lobbying, along with the hunt for the legendary WMDs in Iraq) there is still a large portion of debt that is caused because companies like General Electric who make billions of dollars annually, pay $0 in taxes because of some shitty loopholes in the tax code created by yours truly, the lobbyists. (source)

    Also, everything you've said so far about minimum wage is incorrect. What omega said about walmart and McD's is.
    Here's some source material. (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4)
    Quote Originally Posted by naru View Post
    For political and economic topics that has nothing to do with anime, please go make a thread here

    World-News-amp-Debating-Area


    have not looked at the new season list yet but then I am not really looking to pick up any new anime's
    Quote Originally Posted by twinshia View Post
    I could hardly leave his comment unanswered,
    but perhaps we should.
    It almost feels like there is nothing left to say but then I always get a reply.
    If Omega feels like replying to my comment he should start a thread in that section and then post a link here.
    Last edited by FireclawX; 03-15-2015 at 08:46 PM.

    MAL
    http://i.imgur.com/epGEQ5A.png
    ~Awesome sig by Nelkk~
    "I believe in god. A god called possibility, that resides in all of us."

  4. #3
    ★ Queen ★ nelkk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    On Anime Island
    Posts
    30,267
    Blog Entries
    5
    *subs*


    Quote Originally Posted by Liaison View Post
    Nelkk just being tsun as usual.
    Spoiler:
    Quote Originally Posted by 3bada View Post
    Nelchan is badass. :O
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuroashi View Post
    I will follow you always sensei-chan
    Quote Originally Posted by IronMonkeyFist View Post
    You hold too much power over me nelkk. I may have to destroy you in the future.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mreaper View Post
    Nelkk is a shapeshifter! Burn it!
    Quote Originally Posted by kakashi19283 View Post
    I'm still not on nelkk's sig quotes. I need to change my game plan.
    Quote Originally Posted by wicked liz View Post
    You're the public face onee-sama, preach the word!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mreaper View Post
    Delicious nelkk tears
    Quote Originally Posted by Samukazi View Post
    If our queen state something, then it is a fact. Your opinion is irrelevant! Know your place you mere peasant. psftt

  5. #4
    ∞ Infinite Possibility ∞ FireclawX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Infinity of Possibility
    Posts
    7,366
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by nelkk View Post
    *subs*
    Yay! :O

    MAL
    http://i.imgur.com/epGEQ5A.png
    ~Awesome sig by Nelkk~
    "I believe in god. A god called possibility, that resides in all of us."

  6. #5
    Wildfire twinshia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    cursed isle
    Posts
    878
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    There is still a large portion of debt that is caused because companies like General Electric who make billions of dollars annually, pay $0 in taxes because of some shitty loopholes in the tax code created by yours truly, the lobbyists.
    That is corporatism.
    I am not a libertarian,
    if that is what you are implying.
    There should be taxation,
    but it should not be so high as to give businessmen the incentive to change citizenship,
    which happens constantly.
    The basis of society itself is the production of products and services being organised by people who have the wealth to do so,
    so the first priority is having wealthy people in a country.
    You can not sacrifice any thing for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    Also, everything you've said so far about minimum wage is incorrect. What omega said about walmart and McD's is.
    That is a problem with the distribution of social welfare.
    The project should not exist at all,
    ideally.
    Is this not preferable to people being unemployed and on welfare, though?
    Perhaps it is not as incorrect as you think.
    The majority of those people would probably be just that otherwise and at least this way some sort of taxation is returning to the government, as opposed to... not?

    You can not raise the minimum wage unless you want to cause unemployment,
    which would increase social welfare any way,
    in which case it would not matter that you have a healthy birth rate,
    you would almost want an unhealthy one so people are not born in to a competitive world and so social welfare costs do not raise taxation to ungodly amounts, or alternatively national debt.
    You saying that is incorrect does not make it so and as it is it is not incorrect.
    It is not even about bankruptcy,
    although that would happen with small or medium sized businesses,
    it is also about larger businesses no longer producing a product because they make no profit from it after ever increasing minimum wage has been removed and it will be ever increasing because equality will never be reached,
    the road to it only leading to bankruptcy,
    and then people wonder why it happened in the first place when it was obviously the Union that parasitically attached itself on to the thing and sucked out its life juice.
    Last edited by twinshia; 03-15-2015 at 09:26 PM.
    the annie may loser
    dwells beside his mother's hoover
    at t'other end o' th' room
    where the bathroom meets the broom

  7. #6
    Anime Guru in training Erebus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    decks of the world
    Posts
    7,294
    Blog Entries
    3
    I'm not really sure what this is about, but I'll try to say something

    raising minimal wages may cause the effects you said, but it should also cause the positive ones
    having more money means buying more stuff, which leads to increase in industry and opening new work places and thus decreasing unemployment
    but also raising prices of product so the effect wouldnt be so strong so as always you need to find the balance between the 2
    https://twitter.com/Erebus2509

    set by Freya

    ♫* Hime, hime, daisuki!*♫
    "Spread the otaku ways!"

  8. #7
    Wildfire twinshia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    cursed isle
    Posts
    878
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Erebus View Post
    having more money means buying more stuff, which leads to increase in industry and opening new work places and thus decreasing unemployment
    Unemployment would increase because small and medium sized businesses would not be able to deal with ever higher liabilities and go bankrupt, simply cease to be as there is little to no profit being made or merge with larger businesses,
    which decreases competition, thus increasing prices and ultimately making less sales,
    which leads to less tax returns and less jobs which leads to greater amounts spent on social welfare et cetera.
    People buy if they have money.
    If they have an excess of money then they run the risk of saving,
    which does not generate tax returns for the government,
    which is not a good thing.
    This means the money that was invested in the running of the business
    a. Decreases the amount of profit made and thus the tax return, which is vital.
    b. May never return or will take much longer to return to the government through taxation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erebus View Post
    but also raising prices of product so the effect wouldnt be so strong so as always you need to find the balance between the 2
    Yes, and the balance is a difference between luxury and non luxury items,
    which exists in a society of economic inequality, unfortunately.
    There is no other option, in so far as I can see.
    Last edited by twinshia; 03-15-2015 at 10:14 PM.
    the annie may loser
    dwells beside his mother's hoover
    at t'other end o' th' room
    where the bathroom meets the broom

  9. #8
    ∞ Infinite Possibility ∞ FireclawX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Infinity of Possibility
    Posts
    7,366
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by twinshia View Post
    That is corporatism.
    I am not a libertarian,
    if that is what you are implying.
    There should be taxation,
    but it should not be so high as to give businessmen the incentive to change citizenship,
    which happens constantly.
    The basis of society itself is the production of products and services being organised by people who have the wealth to do so,
    so the first priority is having wealthy people in a country.
    You can not sacrifice any thing for that.



    That is a problem with the distribution of social welfare.
    The project should not exist at all,
    ideally.
    Is this not preferable to people being unemployed and on welfare, though?
    Perhaps it is not as incorrect as you think.
    The majority of those people would probably be just that otherwise and at least this way some sort of taxation is returning to the government, as opposed to... not?

    You can not raise the minimum wage unless you want to cause unemployment,
    which would increase social welfare any way,
    in which case it would not matter that you have a healthy birth rate,
    you would almost want an unhealthy one so people are not born in to a competitive world and so social welfare costs do not raise taxation to ungodly amounts, or alternatively national debt.
    You saying that is incorrect does not make it so and as it is it is not incorrect.
    It is not even about bankruptcy,
    although that would happen with small or medium sized businesses,
    it is also about larger businesses no longer producing a product because they make no profit from it after ever increasing minimum wage has been removed and it will be ever increasing because equality will never be reached,
    the road to it only leading to bankruptcy,
    and then people wonder why it happened in the first place when it was obviously the Union that parasitically attached itself on to the thing and sucked out its life juice.
    No. I don't understand how in the world you can possibly blame all of this on the Union.

    Let's get some facts clear here. The tax evasion and low wages are caused by the bumbling fools who run these large corporations. Let's not kid ourselves by saying that Walmart would be any less profitable if they raised their wage. Walmart's direct competitor (Costco) pays almost 2x as much to their employees, has MUCH less employee turnover, and also is an equally profitable business. Raising the minimum wage would not make Walmart any less profitable. To the company, that money is chump change. The problem is where the chump change comes from. In most cases it's from the over-inflated salaries of the top ranking company officials (CEO bonuses to name a few). CEO's get multi-million dollar bonuses, while the working class (who are under the poverty line) employees get shafted. And yes, I agree. CEO's should get paid more. Their smarter people who have worked harder and have more merit in a meritocracy. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that they can just take all the left over money and shovel it into their own pockets.

    The unions exist to allow employees to collectively bargain for a higher pay and take some of that bonus money out of the CEO's pockets. No CEO would listen to just one employee complaining about his/her wage. However when thousands of employees go on strike, the CEO's are forced to listen. Remember, this increased wage isn't coming out of the companies profits. It's coming out of the CEO's bonus checks. Don't kid yourself by thinking that somehow Walmart would go bankrupt if all of a sudden it started paying it's employees a few dollars more per hour. Do a little math.

    Walmart employs 1.4 million employees.
    They currently pay $10 per hour.
    Assuming that ALL of the 1.4 million employees make the minimum wage their total costs are 14 million dollars.
    Now double the salary. -> 28 million dollars.
    HOWEVER. Not all the employees are minimum wage workers, so the increase will be FAR LESS than 14 million dollars. We are only doubling the salary of the lowest wage bracket.

    Now let's compare the increase (14 million dollars) with Walmart's total gross profit for 2014. 129.74 Billion. With a B.
    That's profit. The operating costs and salaries have already been subtracted. 129.74 Billion of pure profit.

    As you can see, 14 million of an increase in salary is chump change for Walmart. (and again, I stress that it wouldn't actually be 14 million, because out of Walmart's 1.4 million employees, I doubt that more than half are in the lowest wage bracket). But instead of coming out of Walmart's numerous profits. That 14 million is coming out of the taxpayers wallet, because the current salary of Walmart, puts it's low income worker UNDER the poverty line (ie. unable to sustain livelihood at a MINIMAL level). So the government has to implement welfare to support those people. And thus, the 14 million that Walmart could easily pay out of it's own profits, is instead coming out of your pocket and the pocket of a government which is trillions of dollars in debt.

    Granted, it's not like this for every company. But generally, small businesses don't pay their employees minimum wage, and their employees don't have unions. Unions aren't the problem. The problem is the greed of the already wealthy people who pocket the company profits and lobby for tax breaks so they have to pay less in taxes than the people who can barely make ends meet. Ideally, yes there would be no unions and strikes. However in order to do that, you'd need responsible leaders who can pay their employees a wage that is livable.

    MAL
    http://i.imgur.com/epGEQ5A.png
    ~Awesome sig by Nelkk~
    "I believe in god. A god called possibility, that resides in all of us."

  10. #9
    ... ... ... ... ... ... Stormcrusher94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Here and there
    Posts
    7,165
    Blog Entries
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by twinshia View Post
    Unemployment would increase because small and medium sized businesses would not be able to deal with ever higher liabilities and go bankrupt, simply cease to be as there is little to no profit being made or merge with larger businesses,
    which decreases competition, thus increasing prices and ultimately making less sales,
    which leads to less tax returns and less jobs which leads to greater amounts spent on social welfare et cetera.
    Unemployment increases because there are to many small/medium businesses, they soon run out of resources and become indebted, then they have to close their doors, or something that happens quiet frequently here, they just rename their business name, so they get rid of their previous debts and get new resources, so to blame is the country's, cause it doesn't have that cleared out.
    People buy if they have money.
    If they have an excess of money then they run the risk of saving,
    which does not generate tax returns for the government,
    which is not a good thing.
    But the same thing can be said about having not much money. They are saving it for darker days

    Yes, and the balance is a difference between luxury and non luxury items,
    which exists in a society of economic inequality, unfortunately.
    There is no other option, in so far as I can see.
    The economic inequality exist, but it could just be lessened with the increase of the minimal wage.


    Set by xeltox
    AniList / MAL
    Spoiler:
    Goes well with my sig
    Quote Originally Posted by Shikamaruuu View Post
    Rofl no! I've only ever been drunk one .

  11. #10
    Wildfire twinshia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    cursed isle
    Posts
    878
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    No. I don't understand how in the world you can possibly blame all of this on the Union.
    Because Unions increase minimum wage constantly and if they are not opposed it will become unsustainable,
    unless it already is.
    They also organise strikes, which should be illegal, in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    Let's not kid ourselves by saying that Walmart would be any less profitable if they raised their wage.
    You are the one who is kidding your self.
    I have no interest in your speculative ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    Raising the minimum wage would not make Walmart any less profitable.
    Yes, it would.
    There is nothing else I can say in response.
    Wages are a liability and when a liability is greater the turnover is less.
    I am not attempting to sound patronising.
    You sell some thing for 100 euro in an hour and the wage is 5 euro so you have 95 euro profit.
    Where the wage is 15 euro, you have 85 euro profit.
    It is not opinion, it is mathematical fact that higher wages decrease profit.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    To the company, that money is chump change.
    False, the company lives off miniscule amounts of money on an individual scale, the point is the number is multiplied by tens of thousands,
    because there are tens of thousands of employees,
    which turns the actual liability in to millions of euros or dollars.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    CEO's get multi-million dollar bonuses, while the working class (who are under the poverty line) employees get shafted.
    Because they own the companies.
    It is called property.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that they can just take all the left over money and shovel it into their own pockets.
    Yes, they should invest it in business, which is what tends to happen because they want more money.
    And that is good, because as I said before the reason products and services exist at all is because extremely wealthy people organise the production of them out of greed.
    That is the absurdity of capatalism and yet it is the only system that works.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    The unions exist to allow employees to collectively bargain for a higher pay and take some of that bonus money out of the CEO's pockets.
    "Some" does not exist and will never exist. It is the unattainable ever increasing unknown variable,
    just like "reasonable" and "oppression".

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    Don't kid yourself by thinking that somehow Walmart would go bankrupt if all of a sudden it started paying it's employees a few dollars more per hour. Do a little math.
    Medium and Small sized businesses would and it would not be a few dollars because it is not simply one employee but a multiple of employees.
    It has to do with a principle of penny squeezing that should be adopted by all sincere business ventures.
    Absolute reduction of liability is the only way to secure the health of a business.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    HOWEVER. Not all the employees are minimum wage workers, so the increase will be FAR LESS than 14 million dollars. We are only doubling the salary of the lowest wage bracket.
    But why would you?
    And also, what happens when that happens?
    Then you want to double it again and again and again and again and again.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    Now let's compare the increase (14 million dollars) with Walmart's total gross profit for 2014. 129.74 Billion. With a B.
    That's profit. The operating costs and salaries have already been subtracted. 129.74 Billion of pure profit.
    Which is taxed and pays for social services or the business men use it to invest in new businesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    As you can see, 14 million of an increase in salary is chump change for Walmart.
    "Chump Change" does not mean any thing.
    It is just a colloquialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    That 14 million is coming out of the taxpayers wallet, because the current salary of Walmart, puts it's low income worker UNDER the poverty line (ie. unable to sustain livelihood at a MINIMAL level). So the government has to implement welfare to support those people.
    But they would be on social welfare if they did not have the job in the first place,
    which only exists because the company has conservative principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    And thus, the 14 million that Walmart could easily pay out of it's own profits, is instead coming out of your pocket and the pocket of a government which is trillions of dollars in debt.
    False, as Walmart would reduce the amount of employees it takes upon itself to make up for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireclawX View Post
    Ideally, yes there would be no unions and strikes. However in order to do that, you'd need responsible leaders who can pay their employees a wage that is livable.
    Define "livable".
    If they did not have the job in the first place they would have no "livable" wage any way.
    Aside from that, a business exists to produce a product,
    not to provide for individuals.
    The individual comes to a mutual agreement with a company in order to receive money for labour.
    Striking or Unions are simply organised theft, nothing else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcrusher94 View Post
    But the same thing can be said about having not much money. They are saving it for darker days
    The economic inequality exist, but it could just be lessened with the increase of the minimal wage.
    I feel as though I am repeating myself because I am.
    Forced economic equality does not matter if in the process the quality of life is reduced.
    What you may not realise is that the outcome of this would be that every one has a bad life as opposed to some people having a good life, or worse,
    that the quality of life drops to unprecedented lows.
    I am aware you are from Slovenia, so I do not mean to offend,
    but there are just so many obvious references I can make to geographic regions to prove this:
    the former Yugoslavian countries, the Russian Federation, Vietnam, Cuba and the People's Republic.
    All countries with previous applications of Marxist ideology and their "progress" was impeded greatly in comparison to capitalist countries.
    Last edited by twinshia; 03-16-2015 at 12:36 AM.
    the annie may loser
    dwells beside his mother's hoover
    at t'other end o' th' room
    where the bathroom meets the broom

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •