Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#1252 Jun 22 2015 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
the harm is based on the purchasing power reduction. That's a constant, not relative, facto


No, the hard is based on the impact on standard of living. harm isn't directly correlated to dollars, unless you are retarded.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1253 Jun 23 2015 at 6:39 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Heh, he actually doesn't understand the simple concept of marginal utility. Or is pretending not to. Not sure why because even strict free market economists don't deny marginalism. Baffling.
#1254 Jun 23 2015 at 6:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Clearly Gbaji's mathematical genius didn't include the "discovery" of constants and variables.

Constants: the amount of money spent, the force of the punch.

Variables: the relative vulnerability of the person fined, the relative vulnerability of the person hit.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1255 Jun 23 2015 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
You'd think he'd understand it with all the engineers and teachers he knows.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1256 Jun 23 2015 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
He is a programmer, they don't need to know what a variable or constants are.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1257 Jun 23 2015 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Surely you can see that he has an amusing anecdote for this situation, that makes one say "Huh?"
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1258 Jun 23 2015 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
the harm is based on the purchasing power reduction. That's a constant, not relative, factor


No, the harm is based on the impact on standard of living.


Only if you're looking at the very short term. This is kind of what I was talking about before about thinking only in terms of what is "needed" by the individual in question. You're limiting harm only to those things that impact immediate standard of living. I happen to think that's a very narrow way of looking at things, and is a viewpoint that leads us to punish people who do things like save money for the future (or heaven forbid to pass on to their children to make their lives a little better). That mindset flies in the face of the basic concept of property rights since you're basically saying that anything more than subsistence is luxury that people have no right to obtain much less retain.

And that also ties back into the idea behind taxing wealth rather than earnings. It's all related to a mindset that does not allow for property rights. But property rights are one of the most basic foundational rights. Toss that away and most other rights disappear as well. Which is why I oppose these sort of ideas.


Quote:
harm isn't directly correlated to dollars, unless you are retarded.


In the context of tax rates? Yeah, it kinda has to be correlated to dollars. What do you think we're talking about here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1259 Jun 23 2015 at 3:17 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's just an example case that disproves your own assumption that if a company's valuation doubles that each individual's labor contribution to that value should double, and thus that if wages are based on contribution to valuation (profits really, but I'm not going to quibble that point at this moment) should also double.
That was never my assumption. I argued that the increase was not linear. It could very well be logarithmic. The exact rate can be debated, but the overall concern is that the rate can be adjusted to allow the people on the top to remain rich, allow workers to earn more and still companies to gain profits.
#1260 Jun 23 2015 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Clearly Gbaji's mathematical genius didn't include the "discovery" of constants and variables.

Constants: the amount of money spent, the force of the punch.

Variables: the relative vulnerability of the person fined, the relative vulnerability of the person hit.


Again though, this is only relevant if you assume that anything past some minimum needed for a comfortable standard of living no longer hurts to lose. I disagree with that assessment.

I'll also point out that our tax code is currently well past what you are all arguing for. If you truly believed that the "harm" from taxes should be directly related to the earnings of the person so that everyone feels the pain of taxes the same, you should be supporting a true flat tax. But I'm betting that most posters on this forum don't want that. They want an even more skewed progressive tax than we already have.

Which is at least a little bit dishonest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1261 Jun 23 2015 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
It's just an example case that disproves your own assumption that if a company's valuation doubles that each individual's labor contribution to that value should double, and thus that if wages are based on contribution to valuation (profits really, but I'm not going to quibble that point at this moment) should also double.
That was never my assumption. I argued that the increase was not linear. It could very well be logarithmic. The exact rate can be debated, but the overall concern is that the rate can be adjusted to allow the people on the top to remain rich, allow workers to earn more and still companies to gain profits.


I never said it was linear either, so there.

What I did was respond to a string of Bijou's posts in the following manner:

gbaji wrote:
Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bijou wrote:
If I'm following you "logic" properly, gabji, it would seem that you would advocate pay raises to, say, Wal-Mart employees commesurate with the increase in the value of the whole company.

No. I advocate pay for Wal-Mart employees based on the value of each individuals labor to the company. Why would you suggest otherwise?

If the value of the company goes up does that not indicate that the value of the employee's labor is worth more? (ie their efforts resulted in the increase in company value.)

It may. It may not. If the value of my company today is $100m and I have 1000 employees, and 5 years from now my company is worth $200m and I have 2000 employees, then the value of each individuals labor hasn't increased at all relative to the value of my company. I've expanded the company, but I've hired more employees along the way. The contribution of each one is unchanged.


My example happened to be a linear one, but it need not be. All my example shows is that it's quite possible for the value of a company to increase without the value of a single workers contribution to that value increasing. Bijou argument rested on the assumption that total value of a company can only increase in direct proportion to an increase the every individual employees labor contribution (thus requiring correlating increases in earnings commiserate to the increase in company value). One simple example shows that this is not true, thus his argument fails.

I'm not saying that my example is the only one. But I only need one to show that the assumption Bijou was using is not valid, so I picked a really basic one. We can substitute pretty much any values in there and show that just because a companies value increases X5 does not mean at all that every employee should get a raise of X%.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2015 2:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1262 Jun 23 2015 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
It's just an example case that disproves your own assumption that if a company's valuation doubles that each individual's labor contribution to that value should double, and thus that if wages are based on contribution to valuation (profits really, but I'm not going to quibble that point at this moment) should also double.
That was never my assumption. I argued that the increase was not linear. It could very well be logarithmic. The exact rate can be debated, but the overall concern is that the rate can be adjusted to allow the people on the top to remain rich, allow workers to earn more and still companies to gain profits.


Well heck. I suppose I should respond to the point you actually made as well. Smiley: bah


Yes. You are correct that pay rates can be adjusted to allow the people on top to remain rich (whatever that may mean), while allowing workers to earn more and while still retaining sufficient profits to keep the company afloat. But isn't it up to the company to make that decision? I guess my issue is with an outsider just declaring that Wal-Mart (or whatever company) should pay their employees more because the company is large and has a lot of money. I just think that "a lot of money" often is a meaningless thing for most people once dollars exceed a certain level, and that maybe the company and the people they hire to do things like figure out payroll expenses (and all other expenses) should be allowed to determine this rather than leave it in the hands of some random people outraged that low skill workers aren't being paid more at their entry level low skill jobs.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1263 Jun 23 2015 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Look, you used a percent, right there. A valuation dependent on principal sum.

You must be capable of acknowledgeing that a $3k raise is different to someone making 30k and someone making 300k.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1264 Jun 23 2015 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Again though, this is only relevant if you assume that anything past some minimum needed for a comfortable standard of living no longer hurts to lose.


No, it's still relevant. You're still thinking in constants.

Quote:
If you truly believed that the "harm" from taxes should be directly related to the earnings of the person so that everyone feels the pain of taxes the same, you should be supporting a true flat tax.


Flat taxes demonstrably hurt the lower and middle tax payers far more than the wealthy. Everyone understands this.

Remember the story of the widow and her two mites? Not even pennies, fractions of pennies; but they were all she had. In the parable, Jesus commended her for giving everything she had, even though it was such a small amount that Rand Paul wouldn't bother to pick it up off the sidewalk.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1265 Jun 23 2015 at 4:00 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
My example happened to be a linear one, but it need not be. All my example shows is that it's quite possible for the value of a company to increase without the value of a single workers contribution to that value increasing. Bijou argument rested on the assumption that total value of a company can only increase in direct proportion to an increase the every individual employees labor contribution (thus requiring correlating increases in earnings commiserate to the increase in company value). One simple example shows that this is not true, thus his argument fails.

I'm not saying that my example is the only one. But I only need one to show that the assumption Bijou was using is not valid, so I picked a really basic one. We can substitute pretty much any values in there and show that just because a companies value increases X5 does not mean at all that every employee should get a raise of X%.
Well, you should provide an example that isn't linear (i.e., realistic) that disproves his statement. No one is arguing extremes, so to say that "every" scenario should result in a specific increase is a cop out. The argument isn't that every employee should get an exact percentage increase, but that increase should exist and at a rate previously mentioned in my last post.

Edit
Gbaji wrote:

Yes. You are correct that pay rates can be adjusted to allow the people on top to remain rich (whatever that may mean), while allowing workers to earn more and while still retaining sufficient profits to keep the company afloat. But isn't it up to the company to make that decision? I guess my issue is with an outsider just declaring that Wal-Mart (or whatever company) should pay their employees more because the company is large and has a lot of money. I just think that "a lot of money" often is a meaningless thing for most people once dollars exceed a certain level, and that maybe the company and the people they hire to do things like figure out payroll expenses (and all other expenses) should be allowed to determine this rather than leave it in the hands of some random people outraged that low skill workers aren't being paid more at their entry level low skill jobs.
While I agree with you on the surface, we do need a third party involved. How that third party should be involved is a difficult question for me to answer. Simply making "a lot of money" doesn't justify an increase of pay, but an increase of revenue due to the work of employees certainly does.

Edited, Jun 24th 2015 12:05am by Almalieque
#1266 Jun 23 2015 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Look, you used a percent, right there. A valuation dependent on principal sum.

You must be capable of acknowledgeing that a $3k raise is different to someone making 30k and someone making 300k.


It's different in that the two people will likely use the extra $3k differently. It's the same in that it's the same exact amount of money. Again, the idea that money has different value to different people is absurd. Each dollar has identical value. It's intrinsic in the concept of currency itself.

The idea that as wealth increases, people value each dollar less is a strawman invented to make it easier to tax "the rich" at ever higher rates. Nothing more. For anyone not in the "just won the lottery so I'll spend all my money mode", each dollar is given the same value because it has the same value. I'm not sure why this is such a mental block for so many of you. Only the extremely careless think of money the way you seem to insist they do. It's the kind of thinking that poor people have about the wealthy, but wealthy people don't actually have. As I stated earlier, most wealthy people don't think of money that way. Those who do often find themselves not being wealthy.

Wealth is not measured by what you spend, but what you don't spend. That mindset somewhat requires that one not spend in proportion to earnings, but rather in proportion to need. Most wealthy people are far more frugal than those with more modest salaries (not all unfortunately, but most). They absolutely do value each dollar based on its own purchasing power and not based on how many dollars they have. To do otherwise leads one to really poor spending habits. I'll suggest again that far too many people have an image of "the rich" that is based on Hollywood celebrities and their excesses. That's not the norm at all. Basing your tax position on that group of people is pretty ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1267 Jun 23 2015 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Flat taxes demonstrably hurt the lower and middle tax payers far more than the wealthy. Everyone understands this.


Except according to you, they would all be harmed exactly the same. So clearly "everyone" understands that taxes don't harm people in direct proportion to their earnings or wealth. I spy an inconsistency there.

Once you drop the concept of "relative harm" and accept that every dollar harms equally, but that out of necessity we must harm some more than others in order to generate tax revenue, this inconsistency vanishes. But again, it's harder to justify yet more taxes on "the rich" if we acknowledge that those taxes harm them (and thus by extension we're trading harm to one group for help to another). It's all about making it easier to justify an unequal tax system. What's funny is that I'm not even arguing that a progressive tax scheme is the way to go. I'm just asking that we be honest about the fact that we are, in fact, imposing a much greater tax burden, both in real and relative dollars, on the wealthy.

Why is it so hard to simply say "we're hurting rich people to help poor people because rich people can afford the hurt and poor people need the help"? That would at least be an honest start. But that would require mentally balancing the harm of taxes with the help of government programs funded by those taxes. And that might just lead people to be more cautious about how they spend that money. Can't have that, can we? Smiley: rolleyes


Quote:
Remember the story of the widow and her two mites? Not even pennies, fractions of pennies; but they were all she had. In the parable, Jesus commended her for giving everything she had, even though it was such a small amount that Rand Paul wouldn't bother to pick it up off the sidewalk.


Sure. But he didn't require that the rich give everything though. There's a difference between charity and taxation. A difference that seems lost on some people, but a difference nonetheless.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1268 Jun 23 2015 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Quote:
anything more than subsistence is luxury that people have no right to obtain much less retain.

No, you have every right to obtain more, you just need to pay on it.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1269 Jun 23 2015 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I support a true flat tax. Unfortunately, the GOP only supports a flat tax weighed to benefit the wealthy by saying most of their income doesn't count. Every time Gbaji pulls his "you should support a flat tax!" line and I say I do, it's "Whoah, whoah, whoah... not THAT kind of flat tax...."

Give me a flat tax that takes a percentage out of every dollar to come into your possession (your possession being anywhere from your pocket to your off-shore holding account) and, sure, sign me up.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2015 6:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1270 Jun 23 2015 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Watching taped Oreilly now discussing flat taxes and the funny thing, they aren't flat taxes. They have tiers and credits. So it appears on the surface that it's a "flat tax", but there are a number of rules in the background to where the end result isn't everyone paying the same.
#1271 Jun 23 2015 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Bijou argument rested on the assumption that total value of a company can only increase in direct proportion to an increase the every individual employees labor contribution (thus requiring correlating increases in earnings commiserate to the increase in company value). One simple example shows that this is not true, thus his argument fails.
Want to quote the part of my post that says that? Y'know..the "only" and "direct proportion" parts? Getting super-tired of you putting words in other's mouths...mine in particular.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1272 Jun 23 2015 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Samira wrote:
Remember the story of the widow and her two mites? Not even pennies, fractions of pennies; but they were all she had. In the parable, Jesus commended her for giving everything she had, even though it was such a small amount that Rand Paul wouldn't bother to pick it up off the sidewalk.
That's not in the Gospel According to Ayn Rand, so gbaji won't understand what that means.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1273 Jun 23 2015 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Quote:
anything more than subsistence is luxury that people have no right to obtain much less retain.

No, you have every right to obtain more, you just need to pay on it.


Great. But let's not pretend that we aren't harming the person we're making pay more. All I'm asking here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1274 Jun 23 2015 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
gbaji wrote:
Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bijou wrote:
If I'm following you "logic" properly, gabji, it would seem that you would advocate pay raises to, say, Wal-Mart employees commesurate with the increase in the value of the whole company.

No. I advocate pay for Wal-Mart employees based on the value of each individuals labor to the company. Why would you suggest otherwise?

If the value of the company goes up does that not indicate that the value of the employee's labor is worth more? (ie their efforts resulted in the increase in company value.)

It may. It may not. If the value of my company today is $100m and I have 1000 employees, and 5 years from now my company is worth $200m and I have 2000 employees, then the value of each individuals labor hasn't increased at all relative to the value of my company. I've expanded the company, but I've hired more employees along the way. The contribution of each one is unchanged.



Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bijou argument rested on the assumption that total value of a company can only increase in direct proportion to an increase the every individual employees labor contribution (thus requiring correlating increases in earnings commiserate to the increase in company value). One simple example shows that this is not true, thus his argument fails.
Want to quote the part of my post that says that? Y'know..the "only" and "direct proportion" parts? Getting super-tired of you putting words in other's mouths...mine in particular.


I didn't say that you said that literally. I said that your argument "rested on the assumption". Which it does. It's called logic. The only way your argument works is if we assume that the only way for a company's total value to increase is if the value of each employees labor to the company increased. That was your justification for why they should all get pay raises, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1275 Jun 23 2015 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Quote:
anything more than subsistence is luxury that people have no right to obtain much less retain.

No, you have every right to obtain more, you just need to pay on it.


Great. But let's not pretend that we aren't harming the person we're making pay more. All I'm asking here.


The question is, and has always been "How much, and is it worth it?".
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1276 Jun 23 2015 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
@timelord, he's never going to admit it, because denying the variable impact is the cornerstone of his argument, and removing doesn't just destroy his argument, it makes it actively cruel. I can't see him going down that road.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 201 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (201)