Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Social Unrest?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 109 (587386)
10-18-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by frako
10-18-2010 3:55 PM


Re: Resources and Inflations
no and nothing can, though it comes closer to the way it should be.
What kind of a 'can-do' attitude is that? Is that what you tell your workers everyday!?
in moste cases the worker should be payed more than the one in charge or the owner
Anyone can dust a keyboard. There is more to 'work' than the physical. Besides, your laws still let the boss earn more than the maid.
You still haven't addressed how your laws helps maintain the real-value of money. You also didn't address the loopholes.
So if the owner would feel over worked he could do the same, hire others to do his job for him and still get paied.
Of course; they're the owners.
And the others would get paied somwhere close to what they should get paied
Relative to what the owner wants to pay himself, or relative to the work they do?
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 3:55 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 5:56 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 109 (587441)
10-18-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by frako
10-18-2010 5:56 PM


Re: Resources and Inflations
well the real value of money is the paper it is printed on
Not quite. The real value is what you can get in exchange for the money.
if it is only relative to the work one does then one hasto calculate how much ones work contributes to the profit of the company and if your work is needed at all for the profit of the company. As i said the workers could organise themselves and the secertary could make my phone calls so i am not needed. unless you cont in a signature every now and then so a few bucks per month should cover my work.
Proving that your company would be better off without you doesn't really help you make your point. I'm still not sure I see the efficacy of your two laws when it comes to fixing the underlying problems.
If I own the company and hire a contracting team to make some building repairs, do I have to adjust my wadges, under your laws, to match the 1:10 scheme? If the team's lowest-paid gets $5/hr and my lowest $10/hr, do I have to cut my wages in half on account of one of the team members on the construction crew?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : Jon
Edited by Jon, : Jon's

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 5:56 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 8:48 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 109 (587466)
10-18-2010 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by frako
10-18-2010 8:48 PM


Re: Resources and Inflations
If you hired a nother company to do it and you sighned the contract whit that company you do not haveto
So as long as my contract is with a company and not an individual, I am okay?
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 8:48 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Nij, posted 10-19-2010 12:21 AM Jon has replied
 Message 48 by frako, posted 10-19-2010 7:11 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 109 (587473)
10-19-2010 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Nij
10-19-2010 12:21 AM


Re: Resources and Inflations
As long as what you pay the company for their work is no less than ten times what you pay yourself, it would be fine for you
The whole company?
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Nij, posted 10-19-2010 12:21 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Nij, posted 10-19-2010 4:24 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 109 (587549)
10-19-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by caffeine
10-19-2010 8:46 AM


Re: Resources and Inflations
Hey! You jumped the gun on the point I was trying to make.

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by caffeine, posted 10-19-2010 8:46 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 109 (587561)
10-19-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by frako
10-19-2010 9:17 AM


Re: Resources and Inflations
it is their problem if they are self employed, and work trough one of those slave driving companies.
It is? What happens when all the companies decide they only contract with self-employed folk? What happens when every company only does 'contract' work?
they should either get a job as a maid or be self employed on their own whitout a mediator.
Unless, of course, there are no 'jobs' as maids, but only 'maid contract' work.
If it were my company, I'd create a contracting firm to do almost all of the petty office and factory labor. Within this contracting firm, the boss would only be able to take 10 the pay of the lowest paid, but I'd be able to supply the entire firm with only 1/10 of the income I take home for myself. Then, people don't work for Jon's Company; they work for Jon's Employee Union, which has a working contract with Jon's Company, owned by Jon's brother, who takes no profits from either company, but lives in a house Jon pays for, and drives a car Jon pays for, and access to a bank account Jon stocks.
This is only one loophole.
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by frako, posted 10-19-2010 9:17 AM frako has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 109 (587635)
10-19-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by DBlevins
10-19-2010 5:51 PM


Re: Resources and Inflations
A return to the prosperity of the post-war and pre-reagan economy.
Huh? What caused post-war prosperity?
I understand that inflation is the rise in the price of goods/services over time.
Then you misunderstand. This isn't the thread for discussing these things, though. You're welcome to start one if you want; I'll meet you there.
There is no net increase in the amount of money in ciculation
Of course there is. Poor people spend their money; rich people save it. It is not the amount in existence as a whole, but the amount in circulation. Rich or poor, a man only eats so much bread.
As a side; I typo'd in my previous message: It should read 'If goods/services do not increase comparable to that increase in circulating money, then those goods/services will cost more and the real value (amount purchasable per unit) of money decreases.' I tried combining two thoughts into one statement and it came out muddled. Perhaps this will clear up confusion. (I'm editing the message in question as well.) Apologies for this mistake.
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by DBlevins, posted 10-19-2010 5:51 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by DBlevins, posted 10-21-2010 2:47 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 109 (587820)
10-21-2010 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Damouse
10-20-2010 8:41 PM


Re: Resources and Inflations
Inflation devalues money, which increases the number next to your asset, but it doesnt make more or better asset for you.
I think this is made even worse in the case of poorer folk, who have little unnecessary and saleable property, and instead hold cash (perhaps in a bank account) as their primary exchangeable.
While a wealthier person can sell their unnecessary property in an inflation at current exchange (they get more $$ selling tomorrow than if they sold today), the poor person will have the same amount of $$ throughout the inflationary period, and not be able to sell off unnecessary property to gain more, much-needed additional $$.
There is more that could be said, but I figured this side-note important to point out, as most folk are on the poorer end of the spectrum.
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Damouse, posted 10-20-2010 8:41 PM Damouse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Damouse, posted 10-21-2010 1:45 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 109 (587980)
10-21-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by DBlevins
10-21-2010 2:47 PM


An Example
Perhaps an example, with small, manageable numbers will help.
We have an economy: E. Remember, an economy is just a group of folk who trade things. To make their trading easier, they invented money: . Remember, money is just an easy-to-use Standard of Scale that lets folk understand the value of many different things in terms of only one thing. To simplify this example, we focus on only one good in this economy: G. Oh, and people: F.
Economy: E
Money:
Widgets: G
Folk: F
Goods are hot items, and everyone wants them; folk will buy Goods so long as they have money for them.
So, we set up our economy. We have:
10F
1000G
10,000
The 10,000 is spread equally over the 10F (100 to each), who, of course, use ALL of it to buy up the 1000G. The price per good: /G = 10,000/1000G = 10/G. We can figure out the REAL VALUE of by comparing it to the # of G that can be bought with it. Since each G costs 10, the value of is calculated as G/ = 1G/10 = 0.10G/, which only tells us that because it costs 10/G, each can only buy 1/10 a G. The REAL VALUE of (as measured in an actual, REAL, goods, G) is 0.10G.
Behold! A second, almost identical economy: E2!
This economy is almost exactly the same, except:
10F
1000G
20,000
As before, all of is divided over the 10F (200 to each this time), who, as before, use ALL of it to buy up the 1000G. This time, the price per good: /G = 20,000/1000G = 20/G. We can figure out the REAL VALUE of by comparing it to the # of G that can be bought with it. Since each G costs 20, the value of is calculated as G/ = 1G/20 = 0.05G/, which tells us that because it costs 20/G, each can only buy 1/20 a G. The REAL VALUE of (as measured in actual, REAL, goods, G) is 0.05G.
Now enter Mr. MoneyBags. He wasn't bright enough to convert all his money () to goods (G), so he only has money. In which economy is his money () worth more? In which economy does his money () have more REAL VALUE? Is this the economy that represents Inflation (where the price/good is higher), or the one that does not represent Inflation (lower price/good)?
In the real world, Mr. MoneyBags is a low-income man on a fixed budget; he doesn't have any goods he can sell, only a fixed income; when the price per goods goes up, the value of his money goes down. Poor Mr. MoneyBags... poor average citizen in an inflation.
INFLATION IS BAD!
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DBlevins, posted 10-21-2010 2:47 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2010 5:52 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 109 (587995)
10-21-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by DBlevins
10-21-2010 7:59 PM


Re: Resources and Inflations
For the record, when I say 'post-war' I mean after world war 2.
I assumed this was the case when I replied to you earlier. You never addressed the issue.
As a side note, what was one of the consequence of military soldiers coming home from the war with those big fat paychecks?
Certainly wasn't money spent on condoms...
Commodities and other hard assets DO appreciate in value with inflation.
No, they COST more; their VALUE does not change.
What happens when the government decides to give you a nice bonus tax refund check. Why and when would they do that? What are people likely to do with that check?
Do the checks increase or decrease the amount of money in circulation? In our example, does it move us from E1 to E2, or from E2 to E1?
If you owe a debt at a fixed nominal interest rate and inflation increases, you will actually be paying a lower rate over time. We also lower the risk of liquidity traps, as well as the impact of recessions, and an insentive to investment in capital projects.
Small condolence, since the money left over is now worth less than yesterday.
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by DBlevins, posted 10-21-2010 7:59 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 109 (588012)
10-21-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by DBlevins
10-21-2010 9:23 PM


Re: An Example
Let's put it this way. If Jill offers you 100 dollars for your pencil and I offer you 135 dollars the next day, what would that mean about the value of my dollar versus Jill's?
It is less.
But this is off-topic, really. We should start an inflation thread.
Jon

Check out the Purple Quill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by DBlevins, posted 10-21-2010 9:23 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by DBlevins, posted 10-22-2010 2:35 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 109 (639966)
11-05-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Phat
11-04-2011 6:45 PM


Re: Invest In Americans
In order to pay back the social security trust fund so that we can retire, we need to invest in US labor and get US citizens to be productive enough to help pay back the debt.
There is already enough money running through the system to fix Social Security; we simply need to actually tax all of that money and not just some of it.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Phat, posted 11-04-2011 6:45 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024