- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,613
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Yeah, shouldn't it be higher?The OECD has rigged the results before. (Their evaluation of UHC as superior uses a fudge factor of having UHC is 20% of the score.) Fool me twice, shame on me.
The system is free market capitalism. The economy is driven by profit and return on investments, period. Jobs and rising standards of living are side effects. Wages and labor demand vary with supply and demand.
You will have to elaborate on what you mean by ripped off. Of course there are systemic inequities.
What does the typical American worker have today compared to 50 years ago? Computers, multiplr family cars, a motorcycle, wireless devices and so on. The medical technology available today was unheard of in the 50s.
In 1950s buying power middle class was a small house, a car, washer, dryer, black and white TV, and a two week vacation. The variety of goods people can afford today was unthinkable in the 50s. The food 24/7 in supermarkets is staggering in context.
Workers are getting ripped off...yea tea yea. Get out your Castro beret and man the barricades.
Workers usually have nothing to do with productivity increase (engineers, scientists have.)If worker productivity has increased by 500% in X years but worker standard of living has only increased by 100% in the same time that still means workers are being ripped off.
Workers usually have nothing to do with productivity increase (engineers, scientists have.)If worker productivity has increased by 500% in X years but worker standard of living has only increased by 100% in the same time that still means workers are being ripped off.
And increase in productivity does not always mean more product, usually it means less workers and/or different products.
Could not agree more.Workers usually have nothing to do with productivity increase (engineers, scientists have.)If worker productivity has increased by 500% in X years but worker standard of living has only increased by 100% in the same time that still means workers are being ripped off.
And increase in productivity does not always mean more product, usually it means less workers and/or different products.
Scientists are getting ripped off.
Yeah, shouldn't it be higher?The OECD has rigged the results before. (Their evaluation of UHC as superior uses a fudge factor of having UHC is 20% of the score.) Fool me twice, shame on me.
If worker productivity has increased by 500% in X years but worker standard of living has only increased by 100% in the same time that still means workers are being ripped off.
Yeah, shouldn't it be higher?The OECD has rigged the results before. (Their evaluation of UHC as superior uses a fudge factor of having UHC is 20% of the score.) Fool me twice, shame on me.
Apparently you misunderstood.
Their report basically said that UHC is better because UHC is better. They just prettied it up with a supposed scoring of the merits of the various systems--but one of the five factors was "fairness"--in effect, whether they had UHC. Either they're too stupid to be playing with statistics in the first place, or they're not honest enough to be playing with them. Either way, don't bother.
If worker productivity has increased by 500% in X years but worker standard of living has only increased by 100% in the same time that still means workers are being ripped off.
Lets look at those numbers because that's pretty close to what I saw at my previous job.
Except for the little detail of whether they were being ripped off. It's not that the workers were working any harder. (If anything, I think the reverse was true as many jobs changed from actually doing work to assisting the machine doing the work.) Rather, that 500% increase was due to automation. Millions of dollars worth of machinery, I think 4 of us on staff whose job was building stuff we couldn't simply buy (And plenty of tools for us, also.) (I'm not sure of the exact number because as a purely software guy I had basically zero contact with the purely machinery guys.)
The system is free market capitalism. The economy is driven by profit and return on investments, period. Jobs and rising standards of living are side effects. Wages and labor demand vary with supply and demand.
You will have to elaborate on what you mean by ripped off. Of course there are systemic inequities.
What does the typical American worker have today compared to 50 years ago? Computers, multiplr family cars, a motorcycle, wireless devices and so on. The medical technology available today was unheard of in the 50s.
In 1950s buying power middle class was a small house, a car, washer, dryer, black and white TV, and a two week vacation. The variety of goods people can afford today was unthinkable in the 50s. The food 24/7 in supermarkets is staggering in context.
Workers are getting ripped off...yea tea yea. Get out your Castro beret and man the barricades.
It isn’t armageddon, but automation, computers, and algorithms have definitely killed jobs. At work, I can easily do the job of two maybe three people.The system is free market capitalism. The economy is driven by profit and return on investments, period. Jobs and rising standards of living are side effects. Wages and labor demand vary with supply and demand.
You will have to elaborate on what you mean by ripped off. Of course there are systemic inequities.
What does the typical American worker have today compared to 50 years ago? Computers, multiplr family cars, a motorcycle, wireless devices and so on. The medical technology available today was unheard of in the 50s.
In 1950s buying power middle class was a small house, a car, washer, dryer, black and white TV, and a two week vacation. The variety of goods people can afford today was unthinkable in the 50s. The food 24/7 in supermarkets is staggering in context.
Workers are getting ripped off...yea tea yea. Get out your Castro beret and man the barricades.
Some "typical" American workers now have a tent or cardboard box under the freeway on ramp, and a shady place to take a dump. Our economy for working people is virtually in the toilet. Let's stop bullshitting ourselves. We are in a terrible fix and we have last years rotting Holloween pumpkin guiding our Titanic nation on its merry way.
The system is free market capitalism. The economy is driven by profit and return on investments, period. Jobs and rising standards of living are side effects. Wages and labor demand vary with supply and demand.
You will have to elaborate on what you mean by ripped off. Of course there are systemic inequities.
What does the typical American worker have today compared to 50 years ago? Computers, multiplr family cars, a motorcycle, wireless devices and so on. The medical technology available today was unheard of in the 50s.
In 1950s buying power middle class was a small house, a car, washer, dryer, black and white TV, and a two week vacation. The variety of goods people can afford today was unthinkable in the 50s. The food 24/7 in supermarkets is staggering in context.
Workers are getting ripped off...yea tea yea. Get out your Castro beret and man the barricades.
Some "typical" American workers now have a tent or cardboard box under the freeway on ramp, and a shady place to take a dump. Our economy for working people is virtually in the toilet. Let's stop bullshitting ourselves. We are in a terrible fix and we have last years rotting Holloween pumpkin guiding our Titanic nation on its merry way.
If worker productivity has increased by 500% in X years but worker standard of living has only increased by 100% in the same time that still means workers are being ripped off.
Lets look at those numbers because that's pretty close to what I saw at my previous job.
Except for the little detail of whether they were being ripped off. It's not that the workers were working any harder. (If anything, I think the reverse was true as many jobs changed from actually doing work to assisting the machine doing the work.) Rather, that 500% increase was due to automation. Millions of dollars worth of machinery, I think 4 of us on staff whose job was building stuff we couldn't simply buy (And plenty of tools for us, also.) (I'm not sure of the exact number because as a purely software guy I had basically zero contact with the purely machinery guys.)
The OECD has rigged the results before. (Their evaluation of UHC as superior uses a fudge factor of having UHC is 20% of the score.) Fool me twice, shame on me.