Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Capitalism vs. Socialism: A Soho Forum Debate" video.

  1. @willnitschke  It actually isn't. A ad hominem is when you attack a person rather than their position. You should know, it's your bread and butter. I literally gave you name of the fallacy you committed though. You could just look it up. But since you asked, the naturalistic fallacy is an appeal to nature. It's when people try to argue that since something is "natural" it is correct. For example, when you try to argue that capitalism is natural and therefore correct you are engaging in the fallacious idea that what is natural IS correct. I'm sure you didn't absorb any of that, but don't worry, you can go back to throwing out ad hominems with no real argument.
    3
  2.  @evann32033  I wouldn't ask Will here for an education about socialism. He's been peddling the same talking points for years without any sense of them. You are correct in your assessment. Common ownership requires actually asking the common owners how they would like their commonly owned assets to be managed. At the end of the day all left-wing politics is just democracy plus something else. In contrast all right-wing politics is just anti-democracy plus something else. For example, capitalist companies give no democratic decision making to their workers. They function as autocracies. I'm not sure however that a single person would argue that capitalism is anything but right-wing. The same is true for government. Monarchism was always put on the right-wing of the political isle. Feudalism is as right-wing as it gets, with an unelected leader and appointed land owners. Yet if we compare feudalism to the USSR we find they have some incredibly close similarities. In fact the only real difference is that the USSR at least pretended to have some semblance of democracy. The issue however is that at every single stage of the system disagreement could be met with governmental force from an unelected leadership. As a result the USSR, Nazi Germany and every single Leninist attempt at governance just ended in a right-wing autocracy.
    3
  3. @ExPwner  Quote it. Oh wait: "We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The size of the effect is substantial: on average, each major tax cut results in a rise of 0.8 percentage points in top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term."
    3
  4. ​ @willnitschke  Yes, free to pollute, free to enslave, free to exploit. Who needs that pesky government?
    2
  5. ​ @willnitschke  It's not propaganda. His own VP called him Hitler. 🤣🤣🤣
    2
  6. @willnitschke  Who doesn't like a nice naturalistic fallacy first thing in the morning.
    2
  7.  @willnitschke  "If there is no attempt to explain or justify the assertion, it's just an insult which is an attack on the person." No, it isn't. It's an unsupported assertion. That's not a personal attack. "And yeah, I know what the naturalistic fallacy is" Clearly not, or you wouldn't continue to commit it.
    2
  8.  @willnitschke  You really have a complex about arses Will. You should get that checked out.
    2
  9.  @willnitschke  Wait, so you think a tribe, which is a collection of people not an individual, is an example of capitalism? If 2 tribes trade with each other that's socialism mate.
    2
  10.  @themeettrees  Almost all of modern society is fighting human nature. Why should we use an economic system that encourages our worst aspects?
    2
  11.  @themeettrees  Back in the days of tribal warfare the homicide rate was about 60%. We are natually predatory, selfish, aggressive and illogical. We even natually create religion to explain phenomenon so that we don't waste time contemplating the true cause. We are literally built to not be scientifically curious and instead be overly religious. The idea that we should find a system that incorperates these things is ridiculous. All of human civilisation has been about fighting these things, not promoting them. "human nature also incorporates cooperation, something that couldnt be achieved under socialism." Ammusingly, while humans are open to trusting random people, they are also more prone to seeking out their own self-interests than their partner's interst. More than half of people will skim points off their partners. When put in a dictatorial position most paticipants hoard more than half the resources rather than sharing with theer partner. The idea that people are perfectly cooperative is nonsense.
    2
  12. ​ @willnitschke  Love it when you describe capitalism 😂😂😂 Hand over your labour to support me dear worker. Still a clown aren't you Willy
    2
  13.  @willnitschke  We just agreed that Cuba doesn't have democracy. It therefore does not fit the definition of socialism. Sorry that facts hurt your feelings.
    2
  14.  @willnitschke  "The only way to achieve "common ownership of the means of production" is to organise, form governments, and then the government own everything." False. A worker cooperative would also achieve this. "Workers require representation and the government is that representation." Only in a democracy. Hard to represent the people of a nation if you never ask them what they actually want. "BTW, if an individual does not own anything, and there is a population of 1 million people, then 1 million x zero is still zero." And nothing exists 🙃 Next do the one about worker cooperatives being bad because they're just governments. I like that one.
    2
  15.  @evann32033  Will doesn't do arguments. He just waits for you to make a point, makes up some nonsense, then throws out insults. He is nothing because he stands for nothing. As for the Soviets, not really. Take their farming cooperative practices. The idea was that large farms were given collectively over to the workers who farmed them. The roadblock however was that the Soviet state put in state appointed managers to decide what was farmed and when. The farmers had zero say over who was in charge or what decisions were being made. It was as close to a worker cooperative as any capitalist business. The same continued for any other form of attempt to democratise the nation. Factories were managed at the top level using a 3-way system of governance. Equal decision making was given to the workers unions, the factory managers and the state. But factory managers were appointed by the state. So if they ever sided against the state what would happen to those managers? And that doesn't even get into the government elections. Since they used vanguardism to manage the nation, the vanguard were not voted in, ever. They could also not be removed. The vanguard then appointed political officers, who could theoretically be voted out by the locals. However should anyone ever get voted out, it was up to the state to fill the spot with someone new. Elections could then be delayed, giving the new person in charge time to actively punish the decision to remove their predecessor. Not to mention the mental game of only having a single candidate on the ballot, and being forced to remove, not elect them. Add to that the fear of retribution, and your democracy is just more feudalism with extra steps.
    2
  16.  @willnitschke  "A worker co-op in a Capitalist economy is not Socialism" Explain to me how a worker cooperative is privately owned. "What they don't want is Socialism" Good, because they don't have socialism. Isn't that convenient. "And there is no individual ownership" Yes, that is how cooperative ownership works. Imagine that. "so being a worker in a worker co-op has no actual value to the person working there" Do you know what a dividend is? How about the value of the vote? Come on Will, you live in a nation where voting in mandatory and you want to tell me that voting has no value?
    2
  17.  @willnitschke  "There are no shares." Yes there are. Equal shares, one per employee. "Except your ideology pretends to advocate for democracy, requires giving unlimited economic power to government" Except we're talking about worker cooperatives, which are not government. In fact within businesses owners already have 100% unlimited power. They are tyrants of their own domain. So thanks for arguing against capitalism. "They are not owned by individuals, hence individuals own nothing." They are owned collectively by the workers. "Who owns the national bus service? Can you identify the owner?" Owners, plural. It is owned collectively by all of the people within society, and managed by their elected representatives. "I mean, you can't show up at a bus depot and take a bus for a spin." Wait, do you think if you have shares in a company you can just show up and use their stuff? Do you think having Apple stock mean you can fly over to their offices and use their computers? Shares never give you the ability to just do whatever you want. They instead allow you to vote on the direction of the company. That's just how shares work. The only difference between publicly traded shares and worker cooperative shares is the method used to obtain those shares. Everything else about them is identical. "Does it confuse you that things can exist that aren't "owned" by someone?" You're just confusing yourself now. I mean seriously, your argument is that some businesses don't have owners. That's ridiculous. "There are no dividends, 99.9% of the time." Source? "There is no "tyranny" working at a business. You can just get another job if you don't like it." Don't worry. If you don't like working for someone who has absolute power over your working life you can always leave and work for someone else...who also has absolute power over your working life. "If an employer does something truly reprehensible, then there exist workplace laws to protect working people anyway." Depends on the country really, but thank you for agreeing that regulations enacted by a democratically elected government are essential to protecting workers. "I'm not "for" or "against" imaginary things, any more than I am for or against unicorns." Scotland will be very upset to hear that. "Yet the Far-Left always creates dictatorships in the real world 100% of the time." The left is literally incapable of making a dictator as dictatorships require anti-democracy. As I said, the right-wing is anti-democracy. They are anti-democracy in both government and in business.
    2
  18.  @ExPwner  It's like Billy just said: "if you piss the boss off, you can't be fired? Or the boss can't order you around" "And even if the boss just decides you piss him off and he wants to make your life hell, what do you actually think you can do about it?" Sounds plenty tyranical to me.
    2
  19.  @willnitschke  Wait, do you think trickledown works? BAHAHAHAHA!!!
    2
  20.  @ExPwner  Quick, engage in whataboutism. Meanwhile: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich Hope, David and Limberg, Julian "We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The size of the effect is substantial: on average, each major tax cut results in a rise of 0.8 percentage points in top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term. Turning our attention to economic performance, we find no significant effects of major tax cuts for the rich. More specifically, the trajectories of real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate are unaffected by significant reductions in taxes on the rich in both the short and medium term."
    2
  21.  @ExPwner  Yes, in a conversation about trickledown, mentioning trickledown is whataboutism 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    2
  22. @willnitschke  Almost as if they accounted for other factors. Maybe you should read the study. Honestly makes me laugh when you get all whiney because your worldview has been shattered.
    2
  23. @ExPwner  Their point was that not only did the top earners see lower taxes, they also saw increased pre-tax income. But I love that you reference people being poorer, because it isn't saying that the economy grew and their income grew as a result. It says that they had a larger share of the total income within the economy. If they have a larger share, then everyone else has a smaller share. In other words you are literally asking why I would be upset over growing income inequality.
    2
  24.  @ExPwner  Here, just to help you understand how much a 0.8% point shift is in total income share: The top 1% of earners in 1979 took in 7.3% of total income earned. A 0.8% shift would increase their income from 7.3% of the total share to 8.1%. That's an 11% increase in total income for top earners.
    2
  25.  @ExPwner  If they lowered taxes for top earners then then post-tax breakdown would also be even less equal. And again, it was not more or less income. It was a larger share of total income. The study literally says there was zero economic growth from cuts, so yes, it literally is a zero sum game. You are literally advocating for the rich having more money at the expense of everyone else.
    2
  26. @ExPwner  22% was in 2022. That was among record profits, after the pandemic. The year before was 14.6%. Of course, why you think it's acceptable that 1% of people are getting 22% of income is very odd. And a 0.8 percentage shift is still an increase of 3.6% income for literally the richest people in the country, with zero economic growth, meaning income will be directly removed from the bottom 99%.
    2
  27. @ExPwner  Except according to the study it is literally a zero sum game. And since they actually researched the economic growth factor it isn't a fallacy at all. They can proclaim it is a zero sum game as they can back up the claim. But I love that you admit you don't have morals. Makes this discussion far more obvious. "People are not equal" said the Nazi.
    2
  28. @ExPwner  Zero economic growth is literally a zero sum game. We get it, you don't think people are equal. This is also why you hate human rights. Please keep referencing the study you clearly didn't understand so I can laugh again. The study that said there was a gap income, you agreed there was a gap income, then you changed position and claimed the study was not measuring labour output, even though you couldn't explain how it was failing to do that 🤣🤣🤣
    2
  29. @ExPwner  Factually was. They were not dividing total GDP. Stop lying
    2
  30. @ExPwner  They don't need to be an authority. That's why they used sources and measurements to actually see the growth. Nope. Next time just read the study rather than relying on the "rich people should be in charge" foundation. You fail again. Oh, and human rights equality is the principle that all people are born free and equal, and are entitled to the same rights and respect. Being against the idea that people are equal is literally against the very principles of human rights.
    2
  31. @ExPwner  Can you give a single example that their measured output differs from your proposed metric?
    2
  32. @ExPwner  Nope, you just said that people aren't equal. Human rights are build on the idea that we are. This makes sense though as you view money as the be all and end all, do of course you think money makes people unequal.
    2
  33. @ExPwner  Capital contributions are an input, not an output. Do you even know what an output is?
    2
  34.  @willnitschke  Good point. Authoritarianism is terrible. We should stay away from that.
    2
  35. ​ @willnitschke  Slaves in the US were privately owned you dolt 😂😂😂😂
    2
  36. @willnitschke  But capitalists didn't have to keep slaves at all. Governments didn't force them to do it, they simply allowed it to happen. Then they banned it. But thanks for admitting that capitalists enriched themselves by owning other people.
    2
  37. @ExPwner  Slavery was the private ownership of other human beings, those human beings were considered capital. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, of which capital is a subset. Not hard to grasp, just an uncomfortable truth you can't ignore.
    2
  38.  @willnitschke  Oh dear. 1.2% of Americans live below lowest global poverty line. But it's okay because we can just ignore about 4 million people for the sake of profit.
    2
  39. ​ @willnitschke  You're confusing a nation's own poverty standard with the global poverty standard. The percentage of people in Finland below the global poverty line is 0%. But keep showing you don't know how to research and instead just Google answers and spit out whatever the AI says 😂😂😂😂😂
    2
  40.  @Paradox-nq8bk  That's exactly who Will is. He has been replying aggressively and childishly to comments on this video for pretty much the entire 4 years it has been up. The only thing he has learned is how to skirt the comment blocker more effectively.
    2
  41. @willnitschke  Pensions are earned income deary. But thanks for proving yet again how you have no explanation nor understanding of why 1.2% of the US population is in extreme poverty.
    2
  42. @willnitschke  So you agree you post insults, you admit you aren't here in good faith, and the in attempt to insult me you openly call yourself out in 4K. Classic Willy.
    2
  43. @willnitschke  You literally do have to work to get a pension. Do you genuinely not know what a pension is?
    2
  44. ​​​ @willnitschke  I'm not a fan of state capitalism. Are you? You also referred to human beings as things so your "psychopath" point just sounds like projection.
    1
  45. @ExPwner  If private property is maintained but government is controlling markets then you have state capitalism. Under this specific definition there is zero ownership or control of private property by the state. They control the markets, not the property.
    1
  46. @willnitschke  So not just a comparison made by his own VP, but his VP is just as two-faced as he is. Absolute clown show day zero.
    1
  47.  @willnitschke  I'm not the one obsessed with arses Will. Freud would have a field day with you.
    1
  48. ​ @willnitschke  Western Europe, where poverty had dropped for generations? 😂😂😂
    1
  49. ​​ @willnitschke  Actually 0% of people in Finland are below the global poverty line. Lies like this make you look simple kiddo.
    1
  50. ​ @willnitschke  Hit a nerve did I kiddo.
    1
  51. ​ @willnitschke  If you think being called a silly clown is a ranting insult after your torrent of foul behaviour then really can't take what you dish out can you. Thin skinned kids like yourself should stick to CoD.
    1
  52.  @ExPwner  Oh, sweet Ben, you don't know what capitalism is either. You should really fix that, but after literal years of being an angry little man-child I'm not sure you're capable.
    1
  53. ​​ @ExPwner  Do I really need to explain how dictionaries work again? I also remember they changed the definition and now you look really silly. Remember that?
    1
  54.  @ExPwner  Quick, upvote yourself to show you totally get where dictionary definitions come from. Next, tell me how socialism, which according to the dictionary is "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" could possibly be what you describe?
    1
  55. @willnitschke  Oh dear, we're back to not knowing how to spell. Again Will dear it's "workspace" and "workplace". You don't get to make up terms and keep saying them in the hopes we all forget what a fool you are. I suppose childish insults is all you have though after I upset you again. Here, let's help you out though, see if you can grasp it. What's the different between a description and a prescription?
    1
  56.  @ExPwner  Collective ownership literally requires democracy, else it isn't collective. Also not sure how you think anything you claim to be socialism could be seen as egalitarian.
    1
  57. @willnitschke  Oh dear Will. Nobody said that "workplace" and "workspace" were the same word. The point was that both are appropriate given the context, which you seem to have simply forgotten. And you went back to spelling it incorrectly, calling yourself out in the process. Embarrassing for you to say the least. You really don't know how to get over yourself do you. You even wrote it correctly once, but went back to writing it wrong just because you wafer thin pride was injured. Keep laughing though kiddo. We all believe you're really laughing. Upvote your own comment too so we all know how right you are.
    1
  58. @willnitschke  Cuba isn't socialist, so no.
    1
  59. @willnitschke  You're just describing capitalism.
    1
  60.  @willnitschke  Oh, I confused you. Must be past your bedtime. Also love that you used my phrase from earlier. I really get in your head don't I.
    1
  61. @willnitschke  Oh sweetheart, you have no idea do you.
    1
  62.  @willnitschke  So we agree, totalitarianism is just more right-wing nonsense, and nothing to do with socialism, as you agreed.
    1
  63. @willnitschke  So why do you support this right-wing idea? Do you just hate democracy? Hate human rights? Love slavery? What is it Will that drives you to anti-democratic right-wing ideology?
    1
  64.  @ExPwner  Let me know when you figure out how to make something collectively owned by 1 person 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  65. @ExPwner  A decision making tool which gives the collective the ability to control the economy, which is why it's collective. But tell me again how 1 person can be a collective.
    1
  66.  @ExPwner  No wonder Will called ancaps dumb as stumps. Every conversation with you is a reminder of the failures of humanity
    1
  67. @ExPwner  So again, how can 1 person be a collective? Do you have an answer?
    1
  68.  @ExPwner  Looks like your answer was "don't need to" which is an astounding non-answer. How about we play a new game then. If businesses naturally monopolise how would your ideal world be anything other than a dystopian nightmare?
    1
  69.  @ExPwner  Ah, new premise. Ben doesn't know what a collective is.
    1
  70.  @ExPwner  The premise it true. What it says about the subject is your own issue.
    1
  71.  @ExPwner  Is this all you have. Flat denials and insults?
    1
  72.  @ExPwner  I'm not the one claiming a collective can be a single person, but sure, logic is on your side 👌
    1
  73.  @ExPwner  Oh, so you agree that a collective requires democracy, therefore socialism is democratic. Thanks.
    1
  74.  @ExPwner  I reject your rejection. Unfortunately you have painted yourself into a corner. Either you agree that a collective requires common ownership to be a collective, or you stick with your claim that a collective can be a single person. If you say I am slandering you then you support the notion of democratic collectivism. It's basic binary logic. Something is either singular or not. Something is either slander or not. So which is it?
    1
  75. @ExPwner  You openly proclaimed it. You already lost, which is why you scramble rather than arguing.
    1
  76. @ExPwner  Yeah you did. But please tell me the third position of this false dichotomy. I can't wait to hear it.
    1
  77. @ExPwner  Just did. Can you not read either. Maybe the local inference went over your head. Maybe you struggle to really comprehend the dangers and consequences of your own ideology.
    1
  78. @ExPwner  Like I said, over your head.
    1
  79.  @ExPwner  The quote is the quote. Can you not read?
    1
  80.  @ExPwner  Except it does. That's the fun thing Jimmy, with some simple logical understanding you can actually see the concequences of your thought process. The problem is that you are severely lacking in consequences. That's why you subscribe to a religion that would ultimately just lead to a corporatocracy.
    1
  81. @ExPwner  Your inability to understand it doesn't make it a non-sequitur. If every argument relied on you understanding it we would never get anywhere.
    1
  82. @ExPwner  Then stop using it. Your entire stance has just been storming your feet and yelling no. Projecting isn't an arguement Jimmy.
    1
  83. @willnitschke  Your argument is a non-sequitur. You'll have to try again.
    1
  84. @willnitschke  Take that as a no then, you can't explain growing wealth inequality and the productivity pay gap. Although that makes sense, economics was never your strong suit. You were always the overarching ideas and childish insults type.
    1
  85.  @ExPwner  Again with the subject change. You can't help yourself can you Jimmy. Can you stick to the comment of income inequality? You already admitted it's a growing issue.
    1
  86. @ExPwner  Is Pew Research too obscure for you?
    1
  87. @ExPwner  Wait, so if something gets better it must be capitalism, but if something gets worse then we can't possibly know why? Hahaha. Mate, it's capitalism all the way down. What else could possibly cause this?
    1
  88. @ExPwner  Except it does. Compensation is falling behind productivity for the vast majority of people. Pew Research agrees.
    1
  89. @ExPwner  You don't need to break out productivity. But again, even industries such as manufacturing, which heavily rely on workers being productive, compensation is lagging. But sure, spin me a tale about how a capitalist economy isn't at fault for things happening within it. Can't wait for you to tell me boom and bust is a government plot.
    1
  90.  @ExPwner  Nope. The only way your claim holds any water is if you are claiming that 10% of the population is becoming exponentially more productive than the other 90%. This is of course nonsense. Technology improvements are not locked into a single income bracket. Office workers are many times more productive than they were in the 90s, with computers running literally dozens of times faster than back then, yet compensation is significantly behind. And as I already said, splitting productivity by worker is near impossible. At best you can do it by industry, and manufacturing is an industry heavily reliant on the productivity of workers, and yet worker compensation is lagging productivity. So as I already said, you are asking for an impossible stat, and will die on this hill because you can't admit you are wrong.
    1
  91.  @ExPwner  Nope. Your entire position relies on production growing massively for the top 10%. You have zero date to show this. Yet I have already shown BLS date showing that the compensation productivity gap exists even in manufacturing, and in 83% of industries overall. Your inability to review data and your willingness to ignore statistics all so you can claim that 10% of the population is massively productive, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is quite frankly the only way you maintain your religious beliefs over this ancap nonsense. You have to actively ignore 99% of economists, statistics and pure facts just so you can coast on whatever right-wing think tank has spit out for your to digest. All because one day you hope to live in a dystopian hellscape. Get dunked on kid. Come back when you have a real argument.
    1
  92.  @ExPwner  Your inability to read data or understand it is entirely your own issue. You must counter the data presented, not handwave it away. Your entire response relies on your own flawed understanding of the productivity compensation gap. You ignore BLS data, claiming it's EPI data and totally wrong, then turn to Reddit rather than presenting a real response, only for me to pull a direct quote from Reddit that completely destroys your initial claim, which is that wages don't match productivity because compensation changed. This is a false claim. This renders your entire counter argument to the productivity compensation gap moot. So not only can you not respond to my points on income inequality, but in review you destroyed your own initial response. So get dunked on 10 times over kid.
    1
  93. @ExPwner  You haven't even looked at the data. Talk about projection kid.
    1
  94. @ExPwner  As I said in the other thread, they openly state gap still very much exists regardless of methodology used. You just stopped reading when the bit you were reading met your reconstructed conclusion. Get back to debunking kiddo.
    1
  95. @ExPwner  Here: "A full 83 percent of industries studied here had productivity–compensation gaps when the same deflator was used for output and compensation." They already took that into account and there was STILL A GAP! Get ruined kid.
    1
  96. @ExPwner  BLS state outright that they don't know the reason. Of course all of this is irrelevant because accounting for the gap by reviewing a declining labor share relies on you admitting the gap exists. Checkmate.
    1
  97. @ExPwner  Honestly, this is getting pathetic. You are now arguing that the gap exists but it's totally fine.
    1
  98.  @ExPwner  Oh dear, I made you so upset you forgot to like your own comments. Quick, pat yourself on the back.
    1
  99. @ExPwner  So your entire argument is that the labor share of revenue has dropped?
    1
  100. @ExPwner  Sure, but BLS accounts for those in their workings. You openly stated that labor share of revenue made up the last part of the gap. So again, is the issue labor share of revenue?
    1
  101.  @ExPwner  So your argument is not that there is a reduced labor share of revenue?
    1
  102.  @ExPwner  I'm just asking for your argument Jimmy. We've gone round on this a few times now. According to you: "They explicitly put in their graph that it is due to declining labor share of revenue" Do you agree with this conclusion?
    1
  103.  @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
  104. @ExPwner  The paper from BLS is literally titled "Understanding the labor productivity and compensation gap" They are using labor productivity and labor compensation.
    1
  105.  @ExPwner  I love that you show you are using a foregone conclusion: "It does not use all compensation, otherwise a labor share component wouldn't be present." Next time just say "that can't be right because then I would be wrong."
    1
  106. @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
  107.  @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
  108.  @ExPwner  Mate, you posted the exact definition of labour productivity, then got upset when I showed that. Sit.
    1
  109.  @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
  110. @ExPwner  Except that verbage is the literal definition of labour productivity. I then posted the definition to show it matched.
    1
  111.  @ExPwner  As they explain, when they say total productivity they are measuring productivity as labour productivity. They say it earlier in the document. "In this article, all references to labor productivity are labeled as productivity for ease of reference."
    1
  112.  @ExPwner  "Again, you don’t get to compare the income of some (workers) to the contributions of all (ie all productivity)" They don't. They compare at an industry level.
    1
  113.  @ExPwner  "At no point did they separate out labor productivity from total productivity." Yes they do. Here, all from the BLS website: BLS primarily uses "value-added" measures of output from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which are closely tied to real GDP and exclude certain non-measurable sectors like household production. While labor productivity only considers labor input, TFP takes into account a wider range of inputs like capital, energy, materials, and services, providing a more comprehensive picture of productivity changes. "The fact that they broke it out by industry does not address the fact that they used total output for that sector and NOT labor output" Actually it does. Retail is a great example of this. It is entirely dependant on labour for store maintainence and sales, yet pay dropped in this sector when compared to productivity.
    1
  114.  @ExPwner  As per the study: "the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a wealth of detailed industry-level labor productivity and compensation data" And as they define in other areas of their site: "BLS primarily uses "value-added" measures of output from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which are closely tied to real GDP and exclude certain non-measurable sectors like household production. While labor productivity only considers labor input TFP takes into account a wider range of inputs like capital, energy, materials, and services, providing a more comprehensive picture of productivity changes." They expressly state that they are using labour productivity, and that labour productivity is entirely different to TFP. Yes, retail is all labour based.
    1
  115. @ExPwner  Except they use the term "labor productivity" and expressly reference their own labour productivity data. So yes, I can use something posted elsewhere, because that's what they are referencing. The output measurement is labour based.
    1
  116. @ExPwner  Yeah it does. They explain that at length on their site.
    1
  117.  @ExPwner  As per the study: "the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a wealth of detailed industry-level labor productivity and compensation data" And as they define in other areas of their site: "BLS primarily uses "value-added" measures of output from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which are closely tied to real GDP and exclude certain non-measurable sectors like household production. While labor productivity only considers labor input TFP takes into account a wider range of inputs like capital, energy, materials, and services, providing a more comprehensive picture of productivity changes." They expressly state that they are using labour productivity, and that labour productivity is entirely different to TFP.
    1
  118.  @ExPwner  Your own comment literally states they are looking at labour output in isolation.
    1
  119.  @ExPwner  Right...Those are labour outputs, you get that right? They are comparing labour inputs to labour outputs. Okay, 10 steps back. What do you think a labour output should look like?
    1
  120.  @ExPwner  Great. So can you define labour output?
    1
  121.  @ExPwner  So you disagree that they are measuring labour output, but refuse to define labour output?
    1
  122.  @ExPwner  "because you are the one making the claim that they did" Because they did, and proved that they did. "and you just got proven wrong" You have yet to show this. All you have actually displayed is that you don't know what labour output is. "since the output given is not solely for labor but total output." Total output of labour, not of everything. As I showed you, they expressly split labour productivity from total factor productivity. "I don’t have to provide a formula for distinguishing labor’s output from total output because the onus is on you to support your prior assertion" I already did support it. Even you supported it. I even quoted it several times. "it was refuted by actually reading the paper and methodology you put forward." Your misunderstanding of the measure of labour output is you own issue. They are accurately measuring labour output. That is how everyone measures labour output since there is literally no other way to do it. Since you are trying to claim that the definition labour productivity is wrong, but are unable to show it is wrong since you cannot define what you mean by labour productivity or offer any even theoretical alternative, we can safely say that you cannot define "real" labour productivity, allowing us to dismiss your entire argument.
    1
  123.  @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
  124. @willnitschke  "Most worker co-ops require a vote from the membership to terminate a member's employment, allowing for a democratic process to address concerns and potential due process." Seriously, you can just look this stuff up. Although you just said you IQ is less than 75 so that makes sense.
    1
  125. @ExPwner  Now do total compensation for the lower 90% of workers.
    1
  126. @ExPwner  Who said anything about EPI? Again, how did the total compensation for the bottom 90% of earners change over time?
    1
  127.  @ExPwner  I see you don't want to answer. Probably because you know that the growing income gap in society is entirely caused by your world view, but rather admitting the truth, which is that you don't care and want poor people to die, you just back away from it and make up excuses.
    1
  128. @ExPwner  So what caused the gap in income inequality?
    1
  129.  @ExPwner  Come on Ben, you can admit it. What caused the gap in income inequality?
    1
  130.  @ExPwner  Pew has a great page on it. I suggest you take a look.
    1
  131.  @ExPwner  You think income inequality is slander 🤣🤣🤣
    1
  132. @ExPwner  You seem to have a problem with keeping a thread.
    1
  133.  @ExPwner  Did you look at the Pew Research page on income inequality over time?
    1
  134. @ExPwner  So you can't even address the point about income inequality, and instead cop out and cry, further proving you are a spineless jelly who can't support his own toxic ideas. Sad.
    1
  135. @ExPwner  Again, we're talking about income inequality, have been this whole time. But yet again you try to change the subject. Maybe because you know you support poverty.
    1
  136.  @ExPwner  There you go again, avoiding the point, income inequality, which has been perpetrated by your sad excuse for a being.
    1
  137.  @ExPwner  The truth is that you are incapable of arguing your own point of view. Your entire debate tactic is to shove while ignoring any request to address a point that makes you look even remotely bad. So again: Why has wealth inequality grown these last 5 decades? Why have the total compensations you keep touting not been distributed evenly, leading to around 90% of the population falling far short of the increases you keep claiming are matching GDP?
    1
  138.  @ExPwner  See what I mean. You hate the subject of income inequality, it makes your arsehole pucker. So you resort to changing the subject, insulting and projecting. So again: Why has wealth inequality grown these last 5 decades? Why have the total compensations you keep touting not been distributed evenly, leading to around 90% of the population falling far short of the increases you keep claiming are matching GDP?
    1
  139. @willnitschke  Hey Will. Can you defend the growing income inequality gap and how it entirely debunks the idea that pay is scaling with production?
    1
  140. @willnitschke  1. 1.2% of the US population is closer to 4 million people. I can't believe you were off by a factor of TEN 🤣🤣 2. Yes, you can live off less than $2 a day. Food banks are literally free, but even without those you can get a week's worth of rice for $2. Maybe you just struggle to understand because prices are different in Aus.
    1
  141.  @ExPwner  Come on Jimmy, try for me. Why is income inequality growing?
    1
  142. @ExPwner  Your claim is that wages tracked with productivity. As I have shown this was not the case for 90% of the population, and technically also not the case for the other 10% as their wages tracked significantly higher than productivity.
    1
  143.  @ExPwner  Got it, so you disagree that wages tracked with productivity. We agree then.
    1
  144. @ExPwner  So you agree it's happening. Glad we at least got that far.
    1
  145. @ExPwner  Because we don't need to split the productivity to show that 90% of workers are not seeing wages grow in line with productivity, and 10% of workers are seeing growth far exceeding productivity. Quote me saying that compensation is limited to cash wages.
    1
  146. @ExPwner  So we agree, you have no claims at all.
    1
  147. @ExPwner  Yet assuming it can be split to individual workers, and that productivity is not a measure on a more macro scale than a single worker can be measured by really does show how utterly mental you are. Or that you have never had a job in your life. For example, a McDonalds kitchen has 6 staff members. 2 take orders, 2 cook burgers, 1 makes fries and 1 assembled meals. There is also a manager overseeing the floor. The kitchen sells 100 meals. How do we split productivity between each worker? Do we average it out? Do we split it by paycheque? Or do we understand that there is no actual way to split something like this to individuals and their personal productivity output. So again, we already agreed that 90% of the population is seeing wages falling far behind productivity. Your entire argument is that the other 10% of the population is way more productive. Can't wait for you to prove that. Oh wait you both can't and won't even try.
    1
  148.  @ExPwner  Productivity compensation gap Jimmy, try to keep up. We aren't just talking about pay. And yes, I can. Productivity literally cannot be split worker by worker. The best we can do it look at industries, and the BLS estimates that 83% of industries have a productivity compensation gap, especially for manufacturing. You are literally asking for a stat that doesn't and cannot exist. So it seems like your entire stance is that productivity is not growing as fast in the bottom 90% as it is for the top 10%. Do you think that's because of the growing wealth gap, or do you believe that workers really aren't keeping up with productivity? This is especially astounding given the dramatic leaps in productivity due to technology, especially computers, but I'm sure you'll just refuse to elaborate and ask for an impossible stat.
    1
  149.  @ExPwner  So we agree you're ignoring sources 👍
    1
  150.  @willnitschke  Wow, this poverty stat is really upsetting you. And it's World Bank data, since you can't seem to find it on your own 🤣
    1
  151. @ExPwner  BLS absolutely does have data showing that 83% of industries have a compensation productivity gap.
    1
  152.  @ExPwner  BLS and EPI are not the same group. BLS uses compensation. You clearly found the wrong stats. Lol, of course you rely on Reddit. But hey, since we're using Reddit: "Total employee compensation as a share of national income was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the decade of the 1960s to 66 percent in the decades of the 1970s and 1980s and then declined to 65 percent in the decade of the 1990s where it has again been from 2000 until the most recent quarter In summary, basic theory reminds us that real compensation should be measured using the same price index that is used to calculate productivity. When this is done, the rise in compensation has been very similar to the rise in productivity." Get dunked on again 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  153. @ExPwner  TLDR
    1
  154. @ExPwner  Your entire argument is that productivity doesn't match wages because compensation has changed over time. This entirely debunks that claim. Maybe try doing more than a quick skim and declaring victory. Get double dunked on 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  155. @ExPwner  It is if you can comprehend even the most basic logic. Apparently something is only an argument if it agrees with you 🤷‍♂️
    1
  156. @ExPwner  All that effort, just to ignore the part about the gap still very much existing, but being smaller than previously calculated when using this new methodology. You really should actually read the source rather than skimming it for what you want to read. Get dunked on again!!!
    1
  157. @ExPwner  Here: "A full 83 percent of industries studied here had productivity–compensation gaps when the same deflator was used for output and compensation." They already took that into account and there was STILL A GAP! Read the full source.
    1
  158.  @ExPwner  Here: "A full 83 percent of industries studied here had productivity–compensation gaps when the same deflator was used for output and compensation." They already took that into account and there was STILL A GAP!
    1
  159. @ExPwner  Honestly Jimmy, cherrypicking like that is so sad.
    1
  160.  @ExPwner  Someone needs to read the source again. 83% of industries had a gap. A gap you now argue exists, but doesn't matter. Even your own source showed a gap after all their attempts to fiddle the data. Sad.
    1
  161.  @ExPwner  So your entire argument is that the labor share of revenue has dropped?
    1
  162.  @ExPwner  Right, but again, BLS account for all your other arguments. They openly state the remaining is due to labor share. Do you disagree?
    1
  163.  @ExPwner  So do you believe there is a gap in labor share of revenue?
    1
  164. @ExPwner  Got it, so you admit Will was changing the subject away from trickledown economics and towards something else, just like you are now. Trickledown failed to grow the economy and caused massive wealth inequality. That's just a fact.
    1
  165. @willnitschke  Imagine touting such a blatantly debunked theory. A 50 year review of trickledown was released 4 years ago, and showed that it did nothing to grow the economy and only increased wealth inequality. But sure, keep clinging to your ignorance.
    1
  166. @willnitschke  Again, they found ZERO economic growth. Learn to read
    1
  167.  @willnitschke  So much butthurt from you Will. Pathetic. This is why your kids don't talk to you.
    1
  168. @ExPwner  Capital purchases equipment. Equipment is made by other companies. Those companies add those sales to GDP, meaning capital contributions are an input used to purchase labour output from other companies. So what's to exclude?
    1
  169. @willnitschke  Sure thing ❄️
    1
  170. @ExPwner  Wait, do you think that new technology leading to more productivity per worker means we shouldn't increase worker pay? Is that genuinely the line you want to go with?
    1
  171. @willnitschke  This coming from the man that thinks tax cuts don't cut tax revenue, despite literally an entire government budget dedicated to the 10 year repurcussions of a given tax policy and being able to track the trillions in lost returns. I guess you just know better than almost every economist on the planet. The issue is that you don't actually understand the subject matter even one iota, nevermind being able to interpret a study. I mean seriously, even your last comment on this study was just you saying you don't understand it. So congrats on getting everything 100% wrong over and over again. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  172.  @willnitschke  Just finished replying to another comment, only to find you talking about arses again. Seriously, get help. Oh, and go check a report on tax revenue estimates from the 2018 tax cuts so we can all laugh that you said that cuts don't change tax revenue.
    1
  173.  @ExPwner  Got it. You don't have a clue do you. Let me know when you figure out what your argument is.
    1
  174. @ExPwner  In what way would a capital contributions add to productivity without labour? Can you describe the mechanics?
    1
  175. @ExPwner  Got it, so you have no idea. I really am talking with a child aren't I.
    1
  176. @ExPwner  I mean you're right, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I genuinely don't understand, and don't think you understand, how a financial contribution would effect output productivity without labour.
    1
  177. @ExPwner  Right, so back to what I said earlier, you think that if workers are producing more that you shouldn't have to pay them more if that increase is due to a capital investment. Let me simplify as you clearly can't connect your point to the real world. Accountants back in the day would simply add all of the amounts manually. They would spend hours working through numbers and coming to the correct amounts. In terms of capital this was basically free, but in terms of production the process was slow. Then an accounting company buys some calculators for their staff to use. This capital investment allows their accountants to double their work. They are producing twice as much per hour worked. The first desktop calculator was $4,900 from HP in 1969, and at the time that was about 1 year's salary. Now, the initial investment has to be purchased from another company, meaning that $4,900 investment goes to HP and their workers, so it immediately adds to GDP. So now we're on year 2. Productivity has doubles. The calculators are more than paid off. How much do we pay the accountants?
    1
  178. @ExPwner  Capital depending specifically refers to capital used per hour. That is a continuous fee, unlike the one-off I presented in my example. As I already explained, capital itself does nothing, it must be used to purchase something else (like tools in your example). All of those tools must be purchased at another company, which means they add directly to that other company's revenue. The problem is you are attempting to use microeconomics to explain macroeconomic issues. And again, you still need labour. It's all labour productivity.
    1
  179.  @ExPwner  So you admit that you don't understand that on a macroeconomic level capital is used to purchase goods and services from other companies, meaning they are adding to the revenue of different companies. So by purchasing things to make your own company work better, you are in turn pushing that revenue elsewhere. But hey, if you want to admit that increases in productivity don't lead to increases in pay then that's fine. Or did you genuinely think that modern workers produce far more work per hour because they are dozens of times more efficient due to sheer skill? Technology was never up for debate, it's factored in. That's the basis of the entire point being made. As you improve efficiency and workers produce more per hour we should compensate those workers. Thinking like yours is why wages are so stagnant for most of the population. You're at square 1 and acting like you just ended the game.
    1
  180. @ExPwner  Right, but if capital expenditures are consistently higher as a ratio of overall expenditures then it is a continuous expense. Did you even read your own copy/paste?
    1
  181. @ExPwner  I'll take your word for it. But thanks for admitting that there is indeed a productivity compensation gap.
    1
  182. @ExPwner  Nah, you don't understand economics and destroyed your own credibility.
    1
  183.  @ExPwner  See what I mean. You keep focusing on the micro, not the macro, all to say that you agree there is a gap but it's totally fine and justified.
    1
  184. @ExPwner  No, we established that there absolutely is a gap, and you think there is no issue with there being a gap. You literally just spent 5 comments saying that the gap is 100% justified. Do you even understand your own argument?
    1
  185. @ExPwner  When looking at the economics of a single company a capital investment can buy equipment to increase productivity. At the macro level, that equipment must be purchased from another company, which in turn adds to that company's revenue, which then adds to the pay for those labourers. Or are you admitting that companies are taking larger and larger profits at the expense of workers?
    1
  186.  @ExPwner  Right, so again, company buys equipment from different company, company makes more money per worker, company then refuses to pay their workers more despite turning greater revenue, even exceeding the cost of the capital. Again, that cycle has been continuously happening for decades. You just admitted to it.
    1
  187.  @ExPwner  "When a piece of equipment purchased for $4,900 adds more than $4,900 in revenue, that is NOT in the cost of the purchase." So again, you agree that the productivity pay gap exists and should be higher.
    1
  188.  @ExPwner  Again with the arse talk. Does being a braindead authoritarian make you obsessed or is it just a freudian thing where you can't stop thinking about me? "The data shows that wages did go up." You literally just spent 10 comments arguing that wages did not go up as much as productivity, and then tried to justify that fact.
    1
  189.  @ExPwner  You just admitted there is.
    1
  190.  @ExPwner  "Then you tried to pretend like capital didn’t contribute to productivity at all." This is false. Capital cannot produce anything on its own. All production requires labour. Capital can be used to increase the efficiency of that labour, but it cannot produce anything. "Then when that failed you fell back on trying to moralize nonsense about what you think workers “should” get paid." Nope. They just pointed out that they are getting less dollars per work produced. They did not at all consider if they should get paid more. "Instead it took all production and divided by labor hours." Again, capital cannot produce anything. So again, your argument is that we should not compensate workers when they are more efficient, and should instead encourage businesses to invest capital, then hoard the revenue produced by that capital investment for themselves, ignoring worker productivity and paying the absolute minimum possible. So congratulations, you are literally arguing that there is a gap in production and compensation.
    1
  191.  @ExPwner  What's funny is the marginal revenue product of capital has literally always been a thing. You still need labour, but I digress. So why do you believe it has more of an effect now than in 1970?
    1
  192.  @ExPwner  "aww did little one realize his emotional bullshit wasn’t a valid argument and couldn’t deny the economic science any longer?" You would think, but here you are still. "Looks like we’re done here because your made up “gap” was proven wrong" Your entire argument is that there IS a gap. How can you be this dense? "now you’re desperately trying to pivot to avoid taking your L" Let me know when you find a way to produce without labour. Until then you are just arguing over and over that I'm right while claiming I'm wrong. It's pretty funny.
    1
  193.  @ExPwner  Got it, so we agree that you still need labour, making it something produced by labour. And again, this calculation has always existed. Do you think we didn't have capital investments in technology in the 70s? Your argument is that we have greater capital invesments now in proportion to labour and output, except you have not shown that at all, and even if you did it would literally be you agreeing that there is a gap in labour compensation. And all of this is while manufacturing as a share of total output has been falling for decades, meaning there would need to be some massive capital investment in some other industry, which you also have not shown. And even if you did, you would need to account for it at literally every single industry, since almost all of them show a shortfall. But since you recently stated that retail does not produce through labour, which is nonsense as literally every industry produces through labour, you straight up called yourself out when not realising that retail is literally the most labour centric industry. Labour is responsive for all of the selling, moving and managing, with very little technological investment. The only thing you can possible hope to point to is that stock has to be purchased using capital...but that YET AGAIN shows you clearly don't understand that buying stock to sell is just pushing the production down the line to a different business that produced the goods that you just purchased, meaning it's STILL labour production. Even if we assumed you were right, that capital investment has grown massively and the result is workers are simply paid less. Even if that happened without any of those purchased machines adding to the GDP. You would still have to go back to your marginal revenue product of capital calculation to see that when you add more capital investment without adding labour you get dramatically diminishing returns. Meaning you are openly saying that the reason workers are paid less for what they produce is that business owners are using their funds less efficiently than 50 years ago. That they are failing to hire the appropriate amount of labour, and as a result they are blowing far too much money on machinary that does not get used. So thank you for this jaunt into the ever darkening reaches of your feable mind. It really does underpin how utterly entrenched you are in your beliefs, beliefs so utterly insane that even Billy thinks they are nuts. He was so triggered when I called him an ancap he replied saying they are "dumber than socialists" which I found pretty hilarious. Anyway, thanks for the laugh Jimmy. Shame you don't actually understand the points being made and continue to grasp at straws. I wish I could say this is just a phase for you, but you have literally done this over and over for years, maybe even your entire life. Cya kiddo 🙃
    1
  194. @ExPwner  I love it when you call something you clearly didn't understand a "word salad". It's like winning before I even read the rest of your nonsense. Your claim is that capital investment as a proportion of production increased, and that caused labour compensation to fall as a ratio to production. This claim needs to he substantiated. You can't just say that capital investment exists and that proves something. It doesn't.
    1
  195.  @ExPwner  "I remember. Your source didn’t measure that, and you were left coping." Except it did. Production is done through labour. Nothing you have said disagrees with this. You even said that your argument had nothing to do with production without labour. Meaning you are openly arguing that this is still labour based production. "Then you tried to pretend like capital didn’t contribute to productivity at all." Lie. I said that all production requires labour. "Then when that failed you fell back on trying to moralize nonsense about what you think workers “should” get paid." This entire discussion is about a gap between compensation and productivity. Workers being paid for their productivity isn't some magical idea. Instead you are both denying that there is a gap, while also trying to justify that gap. It's a pretty hilarous approach. "Economic science doesn’t tell anything about how much anyone “ought” to get paid. It deals with the facts." Yes, and the facts are that labour is being compensated less for their production than previously. "The fact is that the BLS article you cited didn’t “measure if labor is being compensated for what labor produces.” Instead it took all production and divided by labor hours." Yet you just agreed capital cannot produce anything without labour, meaning those two things are the same. So I reject your assertion as it lacks evidence.
    1
  196.  @ExPwner  "All production is not from labor dumbnuts." Name something produced without labour.
    1
  197.  @ExPwner  In your analogy you could sell apples and oranges separately if you wanted to. That's because you analogy is dumb. Capital is not apples. Labour is not oranges. Apples and oranges are both capital and the person selling it is the labour. Now sell apples and oranges without anyone there to actually sell them. So again, can you demonstrate even a single example of production without labour?
    1
  198.  @ExPwner  So we agree you cannot support your assertion that capital can produce things without labour. Meanwhile, yes labour can indeed produce without capital. Since you asserted something without evidence I'm going to ignore it. Thanks.
    1
  199. @ExPwner  Wait, you think labour without capital isn't possible? Lol
    1
  200. @ExPwner  If you never asserted it they you have no argument.
    1
  201. @ExPwner  So you agree you made claims. Now you need to support them.
    1
  202. @ExPwner  So you can't support your claims and have resorted to lying. All productivity is made with labour. You could not argue against. You were given ample opportunity and failed. Production is measured against labour because all production is made with labour. It's that simple.
    1
  203. @ExPwner  Then find me productivity that doesn't use labour. Oh right, you can't.
    1
  204. @ExPwner  No need to get ao angry. Man you really do get triggered when you have no argument. Let me know when MRPK produces anything without labour.
    1
  205. @ExPwner  See what I mean? You need to calm down. Dealing with snowflakes like is exhausting. You can't decide if you're happy about something you clearly don't understand or angry when you know you're wrong. Let me help you again. Capital investments still need labour to use them. Capital investments also buy equipment from other companies, adding to the GDP. So you are just arguing that something already added to GDP because it buys something that was made using labour should be added as a standalone to GDP, separate from labour, despite being entirely useless without labour. Your entire argument is that business which have literally always invested the way you are suggesting, are now investing more than they were before, despite MRPK showing that would give diminishing returns on investment and you need workers to actually operate the equipment. So your only argument left is that we can somehow produce things without labour.
    1
  206. @ExPwner  Right, but again. 1. Capital contributions consist of buying something made using labour. The equipment companies buy for example are just labour production from a different company. 2. They are worthless without labour. Labour uses tools to produce things. That's also not a new concept and the idea that we should stop compensating labour for work done using tools is a hot take to say the least. 3. The fact that capital contributions exist is not a new concept either,+ and did not suddenly start existing since the 70s. So why would they suddenly cause a gap over the last 50 years that did not exist before?
    1
  207. @ExPwner  4 times the rows is 4 times the work. Productivity, which is measured by output per hour, so productivity is the same. So your analogy has the exact same worker productivity regardless of the number of rows. As for your other point, nobody is trying to argue that technology has not made people more productive. What they are saying is that someone using that technology deserves to be fairly compensated for their work. If I am generating more revenue why would I not be paid more for the skill required to do that?
    1
  208.  @ExPwner  Oh I gotcha. The funny part is that farmers get paid based on what they farm and sell. In other words you are openly agreeing that they should be paid more. As for your other point, all production requires labour. So yes, regardless of tool used, it's still the output of labour. The marginal revenue product of capital has literally always been a thing, including in the 70s when compensation was better per unit of production. Can you prove that capital investment in technology is any higher now, when compared to the size of the labour force, productivity and GDP? If not then it's a moot point.
    1
  209.  @ExPwner  "the marginal increase is not from labor" So labour isn't needed for the production? Can you prove that? "The labor didn’t change." False. The labour is using different tools. Different tools require different skills. Their output is higher because of their new skills. "It’s the same guy driving the same type of machine." False. Driving a machine 4 times larger is not the same skill. You need years of experience to drive something that huge. "The only thing that changed was the capital equipment used." False, as just explained, but this also adds another layer of issue, because as I previously explained, farmers are paid based on their own production. So you are, yet again, advocating for higher compensation. "Capital stock at Current Purchasing Power Parities for United States" Okay, can do. Oh look, when you overlay that chart with the Real GDP you find that in 1970 GDP was 5.3 trillion, while capital stock was 21.3 trillion. This ratio is almost exactly 4 to 1. Yet in 2019 GDP was around 20 trillion while capital stock was at 69 trillion, roughly a 1 to 3.5 ratio. Meaning that capital investments as a percentage of GDP are actually about 12% LOWER now than they were in 1970. But I suppose you saw a line going upwards and just assumed that made you correct.
    1
  210.  @ExPwner  "The labor was there and accounted for." What labour? The one driving the small combine or the one driving the big one? Is the worker being compensated for the higher level of skill required to achieve this? "MARGINAL production is from capital and not labor." Literally all production requires labour, as you have yet to disprove. "And no, the skill set for driving a combine is not different." This is a monumentally stupid take. You think maneuvering something 4 times larger takes zero extra skill? This goes back into the marginal production calculation as well, as if you have a small farm, getting a huge combine will do very little to increase production. You could spend masses of cash on something with a tiny improvement, or even a loss of productivity, due to lack of maneuverability, lack of surrounding supporting resources or the small size of the farm making it wildly non-cost effective. And again, you are arguing that equipment is being purchased more than it was in 1970, yet as I just displayed that is not the case. In other words production has increased despite falling investments as a proportion of GDP, not due to an increase.
    1
  211.  @ExPwner  "Labor didn’t change." Except they did. You need a more skilled operator to use the larger machine. "Actually yours is the stupid take. I have lived in and around farms my whole life. Putting on a different head to a combine and driving said combine is not a new skill." Oh wow, you have lived around farms. I'm so impresses. I have farming family mate. You have no clue what you're on about. "the capital investment to GDP ratio going down proves there is more productivity from capital per dollar of capital spent." Read that again. Now read it a third time. If the ratio goes down, people are spending LESS on capital investments to get MORE productivity. Capital investment as a proportion of GDP is LOWER, meaning that LESS cost gets MORE output. Your entire argument relies on capital investments making up a LARGER proportion of production, yet your own source, and your own admission proves that there is LESS capital investment per dollar of revenue. So thanks for proving me right while clearly not understanding why!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  212. ​ @ExPwner  Since I really can't be bothered to go around in circles on this whole combine thing, lets just use a much wider ranging example to help you out. Farms used to be much smaller, and farmers used to cover only a few hundred acres each. Their tools and equipment were small, and they required a lot more workers to sew, fertalize and harvest the crops. Then comes the improvement of technology. This can be seen at many stages of farming, from hand plows, to mule drawn plows, to small tractor plows, all the way up to the massive monster machines that plow 20 rows at a time. There are however several issues with looking at this in isolation. For example, the ability of farms to plow much wider areas led to the creation of massive super-farms with thousands of acres owned by a single person. The staff they employ when compared to the food produced is far smaller, yet the total food producing area is the same as those multiple smaller farms. As the new staff are not using hand tools and are required to use larger machines they have different skillsets that requrire better compensation. Beyond that the improvement to fertalizers means that food production also increased per acre. Then you have to look at supply and demand and understand that more food does not exactly correlate to more dollars. Then the remaining workers who no longer work the fields because you don't need dozens of farm workers any more and can make due with just a handful will enter into different industries. Then you have to factor in that the equipment purchased to manage these larger farms comes from factories that produced them, factories staffed by labourers. I mean you're starting to understand the issue here right, that using a single farm as an example in a much MUCH larger economy means that you are dramatically oversimplifying the true capital investments and labour costs over time, and how that effects individual labour compensation. Then you have to review if getting a second piece of equipment will be cost effective, and if you get a second rig then you also have to employ someone to use it, otherwise you just see dimishing returns on the capital investment. So again, you really can't oversimply this and just look at the head of a combine. "So you admit we are getting more productivity from our capital investments. Thanks for finally admitting that I am right. The capital investments grow productivity more now than in the 1970s." Let me break down your points for you so you understand your own argument: 1. Productivity is increasing faster than worker compensation because capital investment is making up a larger proportion of expenditures. Except we just found that not to be the case. Capital investment is lower as a proportion of production, not higher. People are investing less money but seeing more productivity. 2. Capital investment per unit of production is smaller because capital is creating production more efficiently per dollar. But your previous argument was that capital investments are larger and that is why production is up more than compensation. Now you are arguing that capital investments are smaller, and that ALSO proves your argument that capital is causing productivity to go up faster than labour compensation? So which is it? Is capital investment per unit of production increasing or decreasing. Should workers be compensated for their usage of tools to generate revenue. Not only that, but again, as technology improves you have 2 types of labour. Labour that learns to use the new technology and is then compensated as a result, and labour that must change industry due to a lack of a need for more labour. In both cased labourers will be compensated more overall in the general economy. But as explained, that increase is lower than the total production. So what we really have is you arguing that since technology has improved so much in the last 50 years, we should not be compensating workers as much as we used to, even though the price of the techology we are using to increase production has reduced. In other words, you want employers to see a higher return on their capital investments without any justification as to why they deserve this rather than compensating their works.
    1
  213.  @ExPwner  "You are wrongly equivocating inputs and outputs. Expenditures are not outputs" Expenditures have to spend that money somewhere. In the case of capital equipment, you are spending money to purchase from a different company. Your capital investment is another company's revenue. You are literally adding to the GDP. Again, this is the issue with not addressing this at a macroeconomic level. "There is more total capital expenditure." But less per unit of production. "This capital expenditure is more productive." Sure, and? Nobody is arguing otherwise. The productivity graph literally already accounts for that increase. It's literally the entire point of the graph, and you are trying to add the fact that production went up into the graph again, accounting for it twice. It makes zero sense. The point is that the people using these tools more advanced, the tools that cost less money than before, are being compensated less for the revenue they are producing. "The fact that the expense to production ratio went down proves my point, not yours. " So let's just ignore that your previous argument was that capital expense to production ratio went up. If we are spending less on capital per unit of production, and less on labour per unit of production, where is that extra production revenue going? It's not going on capital expenditures, and it's not going on labour, so where is it going? "Again, go back to the apples and oranges basket example. I went from 3 apples and 3 oranges to 3 apples and 5 oranges. Did my total oranges go up? Yes, it did. Did the ratio of oranges to total sales go down? Yes, it also did that. We can clearly see more oranges being used and a higher output per orange sold." Except we just showed that the number of oranges went DOWN not UP. Capital expenditure as a proportion to GDP is DOWN not UP. We aren't dealing with 5 oranges, we are dealing with 2. "None of this has anything to do with anyone’s feelings about what you think people should be paid." I agree, it has to do with what labour produced. Labour produced more, by your own admission, by using more advanced tools, as you agreed, tools which cost LESS than they used to cost. So if the cost of capital is DOWN, and the skills of the workers using those new tools is providing MORE production, why are we compensating them LESS? "It has to do with the fact that a total dollar amount increase in capital expenditure has created a disproportionate increase in GDP and total production" Right. They spend less on capital and GDP went up by more. They literally returned more money per dollar spent. Now what made the difference between those two stats? Oh right, labour. "one that is present in YOUR cited total productivity figure from BLS and which you erroneously attributed all to labor when you claimed labor wasn’t being compensated for its portion of total productivity." Name a single thing that can be produced without labour. I mean you are literally arguing with the definition of labour production at this point, yet cannot name a single reason why we would not consider labour when talking about production.
    1
  214.  @ExPwner  So many wrong things in this analogy. Why you even chose a number not divisible by 3 is already baffling, but then arguing that things within the basket are worth X amount that doesn't even correlate to the actual value of the items is mind-blowing. I mean seriously, if we take your analogy and actually figure out the values of apples and oranges, it makes absolutely no sense with your claim of $3.33 or $4. Neither of those numbers are correct. 3X + 3Y = 10 3X + 5Y = 20 2Y = 10 Y = 5 X = -1.667 I mean seriously, what were you thinking? And again, as we have already proven, there are less oranges, not more. Capital injections are smaller when compared to productivity, not larger. The only way your analogy would work is if you replaced the oranges for some new type of orange that sells for more. Of course that new orange would have to be grown and harvested on your own land while requiring zero change in farming practices. And the addition of more of this product to the market would effect the price. And then you have to account for other farms not doing the same, since they are also selling oranges and their change to how they grow them, the yield they produce et cetera would effect your prices. Then this new crop has to be purchased from somewhere else. Plus you have the lead time on the trees growing, they take years to mature. ...... My point is that you are really oversimplifying literally the entire economy into a discussion about apples and oranges, and really not understanding that we are talking about tools used by labour, not apples and oranges. In fact, in your analogy there would be LESS organges, as the capital investment per unit of production has gone down, meaning we are spending less on oranges but seeing more output from the remaining labour. Meaning the value of apples has increased as labour is more valuable when it can produce more value. But how about this. If you argument is correct, then why do companies pay workers more money, and not just pay them the same compensation they had in 1970?
    1
  215.  @ExPwner  "That is NOT what my argument was" It abolsutely was. You not only tried to argue that capital expenditure was increasing and therefore so should production, but you even told me to get the chart for it. "YOUR source from the BLS took total productivity and divided it by total hours. You falsely used this to equivocate to what labor produces which is wrong." It's literally called labour productivity. But sure, tell me about all this labourless production. I'll wait.
    1
  216.  @ExPwner  "I do not have to show anything being produced without labor' Got it. Glad we agree that I'm right. "You made the wrong claim that labor produced the delta and I proved that wrong with data and with examples" Your data showed that capital has gone down, not up. And your examples showed you genuinely don't understand macroeconomics at all. But sure, lets just forget about the more complex stuff. Lets focus on one of the points I made earlier: If capital expenditure as a proportion of production is down, and labour expenditure as a proportion of production is also down, where is all this extra production going?
    1
  217.  @ExPwner  If you read the rest of the comment you would have your answer.
    1
  218.  @ExPwner  "I’m right because reasons" It helps if you read the reason. "if you don’t sell oranges by themselves then all production of the baskets must be due to apples" Nope. This is where your analogy fails. You are trying to argue that tools can produce things without labour. Tools increase the production abilities of labourers, they do not produce anything.
    1
  219.  @ExPwner  Okay, I think it's clear that you actually genuinely don't understand the point being made. I'll try one more time: GDP is a measure of the total revenue of all of the companies within the economy. If labour is being compensated less per unit of production, then there is less overall funds being used to pay labour for their work as a proportion of the total production. If there are less funds being used to pay for labour, then more of that revenue could be used for capital investment, however as we have seen, capital investment in proportion to revenue is also reducing. This means we have MORE revenue, but LESS capital expenditure PER UNIT OF REVENUE and LESS labour expenditure PER UNIT OF REVENUE. So while in the past labour and capital investment may have made up 95% of the revenue expenditure, they now make up say 90% of total revenue expenditure. Revenue is being spent on things other than labour or capital. So I say again, where is the extra revenue? Where is it going? It's genuinely an easy question so please stop and think about it.
    1
  220.  @ExPwner  You don't have a reason for not accepting my reason. You just proclaimed yourself correct and spewed more fallacies.
    1
  221. @ExPwner  Got it, so we agree that labour is not being compensated for what they produce.
    1
  222.  @ExPwner  Capital went down as a proportion of real GDP, not up. You are just lying.
    1
  223. @ExPwner  You didn't explain your reasons. You are just projecting. You argument is invalid.
    1
  224. @ExPwner  If I catch up to you I might genuinely die forgetting how to breathe. That's how unbelievable blind to basic economics you are in these comments.
    1
  225. @ExPwner  That's not a reason. Denied.
    1
  226. @ExPwner  Dollars, which are a smaller fraction of the economy than they used to be. Labour is also a smaller fraction. So where is the extra revenue? It has to go somewhere.
    1
  227.  @willnitschke  Oh look, it's the guy that thinks we can't measure predicted tax revenue based on tax policy 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Man, sticking to the original claim is a real ballache for you isn't it.
    1
  228. @ExPwner  I reject your rejection. Checkmate.
    1
  229.  @ExPwner  You could not substantiate your refutation and are now saying that I need to prove you wrong, rather than you actually providing any evidence. The burden is yours. You are yet again committing your own fallacy.
    1
  230. @ExPwner  "That's a lie" That's a lie
    1
  231. @ExPwner  No, you made a counter-claim that you cannot substantiate. My original claim was plenty substantiated by research.
    1
  232. @ExPwner  Oh look, a strawman. Try again Jimmy, I know you can do it.
    1
  233. @ExPwner  Here, let me explain your analogy a bit more in depth. Productivity is measured by hours worked, so you are literally creating a scenario where productivity, a measure of units of production per hour, would be down. The problem is that you are comparing total pay to prpduction per hour. By removing hours worked you are comparing two sets that do not match. So someone can do more work, but put in less work per hour. The sad part is that you are openly arguing we should pay this person more, but as we have already seen, workers would not see pay proportional to their extra work produced. So by your own argument, this person would literally not be paid in proportion to the extra production they added.
    1
  234. @ExPwner  Imagine using a non-sequitur to justify a claim about a non-sequitur. 🤣
    1
  235. @ExPwner  Because we are looking at ratios to production. That's the whole point. Labour expenditure of a ratio to production went down. As did capital investment as a ratio to production. To use any other metric would not be a 1 to 1 comparison. Your raise analogy is a non-sequitur. It does not follow at all that someone working more hours would not earn more money. Now as you said, they would produce less per hour, meaning their production per hour has dropped, but if their overall production is up then why wouldn't they see more overall income? Your error was comparing production per hour to total wages.
    1
  236. @ExPwner  Except compared to 1970 it added less inputs.
    1
  237. @ExPwner  The ratio is then only relevant metric. Why would you measure total capital input against production per hour? Again, you are making the mistake of comparing something per hour to a total.
    1
  238.  @ExPwner  Not production, production per hour, which is productivity. Again, in your analogy production per hour went down, but production overall went up. In this scenario productivity would actually have dropped. If you are using a ratio you have to compare to a ratio. Productivity is a ratio, so we should use a ratio when reviewing capital investment. So in your scenario a fair payment would be for total pay to increase, but pay per hour to decrease. This would be the case in a 100% commission position.
    1
  239. @ExPwner  Okay, now you're just 100% screwing with me. If your hours went up 25% but your sales went up 100% then your productivity would increase, not decrease. You would go from producing $250 per hour to producing $400 per hour. That's an increase 60% per hour.
    1
  240. @ExPwner  Got it, so you meant up but said down. As has been explained to you multiple times, we aren't talking about a single company, but the entire economy. Let's change your example to a capital investment. You go from replacing tools regularly to adding a new machine that will increase total production. For ease let's just match your ratios, so a 25% increase to cost caused a 100% increase in total units created. Now imagine every single company that manufactues that same item does the same thing. If you double the supply of something without changing demand what happens to prices? Right, they drop. So a 100% increase to items produced across an entire economy would not equal a 100% increase in revenue over the long term. That's why you can't use microeconomics when looking at macroeconomic. This also doesn't account for capital investments being used to purchase equipment from other companies, meaning the money spent goes to a different company, and if more people buy that equipment then demand goes up, which mean prices go up.
    1
  241. @ExPwner  Don't be rude James. I was eating dinner and putting my kid to bed. Maybe think for half a second before spouting off.
    1
  242. @ExPwner  I love it when you call things you clearly don't understand a word salad. Again, you are trying to use microeconomics to explain a macroeconomic problem.
    1
  243. @ExPwner  Yeah, if you can't grasp the difference between micro and macro economics then I really can't help you. Are you genuinely trying to argue that supply and demand is irrelevant and we should just make as much as wel can of every product because then we will have more money?
    1
  244. @ExPwner  Got it. We can just stop here if you're refusing to discuss macroeconomic.
    1
  245. @ExPwner  The subject is macroeconomics. If you can't discuss a point about macroeconomics that doesn't make it a change in subject. In fact the only person changing the subject is you, as you have consistent brought up microeconomics. But sure. We can end here without you getting stomped and failing to even understand why.
    1
  246. @ExPwner  Do you even understand why the relationship between productivity and pay is so important?
    1
  247. @willnitschke  Will, did you figure out how tax codes and tax revenue work yet.
    1
  248. ​ @ExPwner  Actually I'm trying to help you understand the relationship between worker compensation and GDP. On a microeconomic level you can sit and argue that if we pay workers less as a proportion of what they produce then the economy can keep growing. The issue however is that the main driving force of GDP is labour using their earnings to then purchase things. The productivity is literally a measure of how much revenue companies are making by selling goods and services, and the labour compensation is a measure of how much money the labour force has to spend on those goods and services. As a result people used to save 12% of their income, but that number has halved to just 6%. Incomes are not keeping up with cost of living leaving people left worse off than they were 50 years ago. As labour gets squeezed they home ownership rates are dropping among those too young to join the market when it was cheap. And this is without even addressing other issues, such as an increase in items produced causing a drop in price, meaning produced items and production are not a 1:1, as I explained earlier. This is why we use compensation and capital contributions as a percentage of total GDP, not as standalone figures. You could use a standalone figure to argue that wages have increased or that capital contributions are up, but the point is that they have not increased as much as revenue, and revenue largely comes from labour spending their earnings, and is a key indicator of issues like wealth inequality. The same is true for capital purchases as well, with reinvestment percentages actually being lower than in 1970. So I hope you at least attempt to learn something rather than spitting vitriol like you usually do. I found it amusing you talked about ad homimem attacks, when you used some variation of the word "dumb" in about 25 separate comments in this thread alone. Peace James. I'm sure we'll chat again.
    1
  249. @willnitschke  So wait, capitalism will do anything so long as a government doesn't ban it, and somehow that makes the PRIVATE enslavement of millions anything other than capitalism. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  250. @willnitschke  Governments banned them, not capitalists. Capitalists were happy to continue enslaving people.
    1
  251. @ExPwner  Sorry Ben, but dealing with actual facts and definitions can't be ignored with "nuh uh". You have to try using that noggin for once.
    1
  252.  @ExPwner  Sure sure. Pull the other one it's got bells on.
    1
  253.  @ExPwner  Aww, you don't know what that means and now you're lashing out. Just stop supporting slavery. It's not that hard kiddo.
    1
  254.  @ExPwner  You don't know what that means do you. I'll add it to the list.
    1
  255.  @ExPwner  Lashing out again. Why not prove it. Tell me what "pull the other one" means.
    1
  256.  @ExPwner  Look at that, you can't. All because you're too scared to admit your support slavery.
    1
  257.  @ExPwner  Like when you say I'm lying because you're too scared to admit you love slavery.
    1
  258.  @ExPwner  We get it, you love lawless capitalism, just like the confederates.
    1
  259.  @ExPwner  Yes yes, it's about state's rights 🤡
    1
  260. @ExPwner  Aww, is the Confederate winning?
    1
  261.  @ExPwner  It's sad really. You support a philosophy built on slavery, child marriage and pedophilia, all because you're a sick individual. Or are you actually just a useful idiot.
    1
  262. @ExPwner  Cry more degenerate.
    1
  263.  @ExPwner  We get it, you love slavery. Capitalists had slaves for centuries until government finally stopped them, and that upsets you to no end.
    1
  264.  @willnitschke  "And humans owned slaves for hundreds of thousands of years. Why didn't the Roman Empire stop slavery?" Public opinion. The British ended the slave trade because in 1792 every single county in England, Scotland and Wales presented parliamentary petitions to stop the trade. It was then outlawed in 1807. Further political pressure from abolitionists pushed the ownership of slaves to be outlawed in 1834, and as a result the British government took out a loan so large it took until 2015 to pay off. Absolutely no part of the British abolition of slavery financially benefited them, and was driven entirely by massive political pressure from the general public. The same is true for the US. The abolition movement gained huge popularity and drove the federal government to outlawing the practice. This drove the nation further apart and eventually lead to the civil war. Now imagine trying to argue that the US civil war, a war that killed around 800,000 working age American men, 2% of the total population, was a financially benefitial. A war that added billions to the national debt. The truth is that capitalism and slavery are not only compatible, but even flourish together. Any industry that benefits heavily off low income long-term stable workers, such as farmers, servants, factory workers et cetera, benefit massively off slavery. Even to this day endentured servants continue to thrive in a black market of enslavement. What stops this horrific practice? Government every single time. If you don't ban it Capitalists will do it, because profit is more important than people. So again, what ended slavery? Democracy.
    1
  265. ​ @willnitschke  You said it, some THING valuable. Not someone. Thanks for making the point again 😂😂😂😂
    1
  266. ​​ @willnitschke  Oh look, and dehumanising capitalist. Let me know when you figure out slavery is bad. And this is twice now you're failed to correct someone. Embarrassing for you.
    1
  267. ​ @willnitschke  "Modern landslide" Got less than 50% of the vote 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  268.  @willnitschke  The bar is really low for Republicans isn't it. Imagine thinking that getting less than 50% of the vote is a landslide 🤣🤣🤣 But hey, enjoy your tariffs.
    1
  269.  @willnitschke  Imagine gloating over such a slim margin. The bar really is low for Republicans. At least your home state has some sense. Enjoy the tariffs though.
    1
  270.  @willnitschke  Of course it's slim. 6 seats in the house is enough for more Republican in-fighting, just as we witnessed with the ridiculous speaker elections. And while this is the first Republican popular vote win since 2004, it still wasn't even 50%. Face it, Republicans are a minority propped up by DEI.
    1
  271.  @willnitschke  Yes, winning less than 50% of the vote is slim. But I suppose the entire Republican apparatus is just DEI, so of course they view even the smallest popular vote victory as a win. They are so used to winning with a minority.
    1
  272. @willnitschke  I love that the man claiming he cares so little not only keeps replying, but also keeps liking his own comment. You care so much that you want me to think people even agree with you. Sad.
    1
  273. @willnitschke  It's funny thinking about you angrily typing while pretending anything you say is genuine. Guess your life took a sharp downturn since we last got into a real discussion.
    1
  274.  @willnitschke  Describing your comment as you type it is a bold strategy. Let's see of it pays off.
    1
  275.  @willnitschke  See, like that. Maybe you think announcing yourself like this will do something special.
    1
  276.  @willnitschke  Man, imagine lying about your nationality just so you can whine in a comment section. This is sad Will.
    1
  277.  @willnitschke  Oh, we're back to looping Willy. I remember this one. Must really need under your skin to shutdown your brain like this.
    1
  278. @willnitschke  Still stuck up your own arse Will? I know it hurts yo get your head out of there, but do try sometimes.
    1
  279.  @willnitschke  Your own inability to understand that less than 50% will never be considered a landslide is a failing of your own feable mind. With such a slim house lead as well the GOP infighting will rear its ugly head once more. And with search trends being what they are people are already turning away from the new administration. It's going to be tough going for the wannabe dictator and his swamp.
    1
  280.  @ExPwner  Can't wait for you to tell me that winning by 3 house seats and not even getting a majority of the vote is totally a landslide because we have an electoral college which means some votes count more than others, and that makes it a landslide despite the lack of actual popularity.
    1
  281. ​ @willnitschke  1. Workplace is 1 word. If you want to correct people at least do it correctly, or you just look foolish. 2. No, the USSR did not democratise the workplace. Decisions were made between manager, government reps and unions. 2 thirds of that process have nothing to do with workers.
    1
  282. ​ @willnitschke  1. Nope, it's workplace. Workspace is also acceptable as it is the environment one does their work. Work place is not. Yet again you are lying. 2. Nope. Stop making things up. Even in the collective farms state officials maintained operational control. They were not worker cooperatives.
    1
  283. @willnitschke  1. Oh look, you learnt to spell. Congrats Willy. Thanks for coming around and using the correct spelling, which is workplace, and not work place. Work place means something entirely different to workplace. 2. Wow, did the facts hurt your feelings Willy. Post a fact and I'll get back to you kid. Until then you can keep up the knob jockey practice.
    1
  284. ​ @willnitschke  Glad you mentioned Finland, the country where the government owns a third of the nations wealth, 90% of workers are in unions, and yet they are the world's happiest country, have a monthly benefit to pay for children, free childcare, free healthcare, almost zero homelessness due to housing first, 93% high-school graduation rate, 66% higher education rate, paid parental leave and much much more. So imagine calling a country poor and then getting outperformed by them 10 times over 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  285. @willnitschke  And yet they managed to end homelessness and provide free social services to everyone. Happiness is through the roof. Wealth distribution is substantially better overall as well. But sure, let's focus on the recent housing market increase that bends the median wealth stats and ignore that those increases come with increased costs and no ability to actually capitalise on the increase since people still need somewhere to live. Imagine ignoring every single useful stat just so you can point to housing prices inflating. Can't wait for you to tell me that all the personal bankruptcies in the US are also why the US is so much better.
    1
  286. ​ @willnitschke  Oh look, you did some actual research on what the global poverty line is. Shame you didn't check the US stats on it. Big oof.
    1
  287. ​ @Paradox-nq8bk  Oof, worse than China, can you imagine.
    1
  288. @willnitschke  So you're just ignoring the data and posturing like always.
    1
  289.  @willnitschke  Imagine thinking food kitchens are the same as earning a living or receiving government benefits 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  290. @willnitschke  1. We aren't talking about Auatralia. We're talking about the US. 2. The US government scheme requires 10 years of active work. 3. Pensions almost always refer to employer pension benefits, which require working for X number of years. But sure, let's just mention Australia, likely because you frantically searched for a state pension that doesn't require years of employment before paying out.
    1
  291. @willnitschke  1. Nope, I said earning a living or government benefits. Go back and check. That would encompass all pension plans, as well as SSI you just mentioned. SSI isn't a pension program. Again, pensions in the US specifically referred to employer benefits programs. SSI is welfare. Welfare still counts as income thus US citizens are still in extreme poverty DESPITE SSI existing. 2. Cool. Post all 1 million examples. 3. Yes, naming conventions are relevant. And all of this ignores that while you argue these plans exist, millions of Americans remain below the global poverty line.
    1
  292.  @willnitschke  I love how you talk about food stamps, but do so little research that you don't know that food stamps count as welfare income for the purposes of the global poverty estimates. One of the many issues is access to benefits, especially for the homeless.
    1
  293.  @BookishNan-mz7sh  "Communist country" is an oxymoron.
    1