Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "ReasonTV"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
Aww, you don't want to say it because you just figured out what reduced labor share of revenue is didn't you. FYI, it means labor is getting paid less per unit of productivity.
But sure, lets break down you new points:
"Namely improperly using two different measures of inflation"
Except BLS addressed this exact point, using an appropriately matched deflator, and were still left with a gap in 83% of industries.
"trying to compare only some compensation to all of productivity"
Nope. BLS account for this as well. They use all wages and benefits combined.
"If you start with the false comparison of only part of the compensation to all of the productivity then you will get a manufactured and totally fake “gap”"
Again, BLS uses all compensation.
"Part of this will be because of labor being a lower share of total income."
Pretty sure you meant to say they are a lower share of total productivity here.
And this is why you only compare labor productivity to labor compensation. Why would we use a mismatched metric for productivity here? There is no reason to include something like personal rental income when reviewing labor productivity and compensation.
"From the sources I have seen, labor constitutes a lower share of total compensation over the years."
Which again, is why you only compare labor productivity to labor income. I mean seriously, one of your main arguments is that we should be using total factor productivity, but we are expressly measuring if labor is being compensated for the production that they produce. Why use anything other than labor productivity?
"If that has methodology issues I am happy to hear, but it wouldn’t seem to square with a larger retired population that doesn’t work but does draw incomes."
They don't use retirement income at all. They are reviewing people working and comparing the revenue they produce in their industries with the compensation they receive.
So it seems like you realised your error, tried to cover desperately, but since you don't actually know anything more on the subject than what the Heritage Foundation has told you, you are stuck trying to actually understand and argue these points.
Sooooo checkmate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
Yes, that is the productivity of labor.
"Labor productivity, is a measure of how efficiently labor is used to produce goods and services. It's calculated by dividing the real output index by the hours worked index, which includes all workers, such as employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers."
"Total factor productivity compares output growth to the growth in a combination of inputs, including labor, capital, energy, materials, and services. TFP measures the overall efficiency of using all resources in production, and accounts for technological advancements."
1
-
@ExPwner
Again:
"Labor productivity, is a measure of how efficiently labor is used to produce goods and services. It's calculated by dividing the real output index by the hours worked index, which includes all workers, such as employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers."
"Total factor productivity compares output growth to the growth in a combination of inputs, including labor, capital, energy, materials, and services. TFP measures the overall efficiency of using all resources in production, and accounts for technological advancements."
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke
"This is the same as zillions of Americans live below the global poverty line of USD $2.15 per day!"
Still struggling with that calculation I see. Before it was 350,000 and now it's "zillions".
Maybe Jimmy can help you figure out what 1.2% of the US population is.
"He ignores basic logic, because nobody can buy enough food to survive on $2.15 a day or less, so all these people would be dead."
Again, a week's worth of fortified rice is $2. You would have $12 to spare and would still be below the poverty line.
"He then appeals to food banks, except that just means that total received benefits exceed $2.15 a day."
Food banks are not benefits, they are charity. Charity is not a benefit. This is a fun point though, as World Bank uses data based on consumption, and would in fact account for food banks.
"If you read the paper by Shaefer and Edin, then you discover that the $2.15 a day figure is based on ONLY considering actual wages, and not other benefits or entitlements."
Not only is this false, as the World Bank uses data based on consumption rather than income whenever possible, but even in this very study they use an income + SNAP calculation and find that poverty is still not 0%. In fact it has been increasing in the last 30 years, and was at 0.6% in 2012, which is still 2 million people. They also don't have numbers for this decade.
"And it's based on at least 1 month in 12 of unemployment."
False, for 3 reasons.
1. It's based on 3 months of zero income.
2. Unemployment usualy gives people unemployment benefits, which are income.
3. Again, World Bank use consumption data. So they would be measuring how much people used, not how much they earned. This would mean things like SNAP, TANF and all the other benefits would apply as they would directly contribute to consumption data.
"Yes, if you're a gig worker, maybe you won't get a gig, hence earn income, for weeks at a time."
Depends when you are surveyed, but if you are purchasing and/or consuming less than $60 of food and/or clothing in a given month then that's clearly a poverty situation. You aren't using your wealth from the gig work to take care of yourself, you are actively spending as little as possible making it through the tough time period you are currently living in.
I would strongly suggest just going to the World Bank website and reviewing their methodology section, rather than relying on an 11 year old study that likely isn't even reviewing the same methodology as the current data. They don't even use the same dollar threshold.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke
"For real world businesses that self describe as worker co-ops, they are typically small business LLC's with shareholders."
Except shares are given to employees and cannot be bought or sold. They are owned in common by the workers. So that's not private ownership at all.
"Of course. Because every single Socialist catastrophe we've seen 100% of the time in the real world is not Real Socialism"
Glad we agree.
"So morons like you get to advocate for identical policies"
Ah yes, democracy, famously the policy of authoritarian dictators.
"If you mean collective ownership, then there is no ownership."
So according to you worker cooperatives are owned by nobody.
"Cooperatives rarely pay dividends because they are not very profitable."
Except they do pay dividends. That's because the workers own the business. They are even motivated to work harder to see better dividends.
This last one you can just argue against yourself. It's more fun:
"That value is zero. I don't own equities so I can vote in the shareholder meeting"
"Democracy in the political sphere is there to act as a safe guard against government tyranny."
Safeguarding against tyranny is the value. Your ability to vote for or against leadership within your own company, as well as voting on key issues such as company bylaws allows you to create a democratic work environment.
"democracy is ugly, inefficient, unrepresentative, wasteful, corrupting, and horribly inept. But even with all these flaws, it is STILL superior to the alternative"
I agree. So why are you in favour of a workplace tyranny? It's shocking to me you keep advocating for authoritarian rule, only to then tell me over and over how great democracy is. In fact here is my favourity quote.
"superior to the alternative, which is government tyranny"
Right. You hate tyranny...unless it's in businesses then it's totally fine.
Like I said, right-wing politics is just anti-democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1