Jeff Bezos and the Amazon staff pay offer

Machines are cheaper than people.

What will we do when artificial intelligence, quantum computers and high-speed wireless displace millions of workers?

 

2018 Amazon bumped up the US minimum to $15. 10.50 GBP = $12.39 US.

 

Work in fields not replaced by machines and computers, and get you some capital.
Many machines cost much more than people. They are frequently more productive than people, even with the higher cost.

 

You should see how they produce tomatoes. Start at 28:30 to see what happens to field work.



(The video is pretty good, so you might want to look at all of it.)

Sometimes they even cost less than people and are more productive. Consider using computers to read CT scans instead of radiologists.

 

Eh. 1800s, 90 something % of us worked in agriculture because if we didnt, we would have starved. Now it's about 1.3% because of technology and we are all on average eating much better and expending a smaller portion of our income on food than back then. Its a good thing.

 

Sure. That’s why my comments can be supported by references to academia and yours always are unsubstantiated or conflict with known evidence.

Are you claiming that socialism is not an economic concept? Or worker productivity? Or worker compensation?

Interesting.

Yes it’s instructive in showing socialism is founded on who owns/controls production—the worker or capital. Not on collectivism. It’s absolutely relevant.

Good.

I don’t complain to moderation. I try and help members make better arguments. You are a smart guy who could do better. The rules are there to help members make valid arguments that merit the attention of other members by being instructive and concise.

I’m pointing out if you followed the rules you would have more credibility. That’s all. If you choose to offer only fallacy and generic links you haven’t read that’s your choice. But I know you could do better.

I already know. That’s why I answered your question with some of the same points. If you had read your link or had the ability to understand it snd my comments you would know this.

Yes. That’s how I know it supports what I wrote and how I was able to post relevant pull quotes and content.

Yes, he was giving his personal opinion.

You made the claim. If it’s a strawman it is your creation. I simply addressed YOUR claim.

I know. Because you did not receive a comprehensive education. You were subjected to some rote memorization and that’s about it. No learning about the origins of economics or why economic disciplines coalesced inside other branches of philosophy.

Economists without this background knowledge are a danger because their “solutions” seldom address actual causes and almost never focus on what’s best for individuals or society. They suffer from tunnel vision so their effectiveness is always limited and their “solution” often does more harm than good.

Yes you did.

Oh dear.

A fed chairman who said the Fed would not cause another Great Depression. Unfortunately the track record of government and government perpetuated monopolies on keeping those kinds of promises is not stellar.

We should be more than interested, we should be greatly concerned. Concerned because the entity tasked with facilitating a stable economy was complicit in causing the worst economic disaster the country has known.

Also, anyone truly concerned about workers getting fair compensation should seriously question the Fed’s role in increasing government spending power at the expense of the worker.

It’s interesting to me as the fed slows increases to the money supply today congress acts to fill in the gap, ensuring that the massive increase in government spending power we see now continues at the expense of the worker. It’s quite clever, especially when marketed under “inflation reduction”. Americans love bread and circuses as much as Romans ever did!

 

I regularly cite economic concepts and supply sources. You talk in general terms and about philosophy.

How many times do I have to say it? Socialism is based on collective ownership of the means of production. No collective ownership, no socialism.

You must be smart enough to know every comment isn't an argument.

You're telling me you knew everything in Bernanke's address?

No, you don't know. I'm not interested in opening up a discussion on what is and isn't socialism. This is what interests me:



Having the worker get a greater return on his labor is an important issue that doesn't get any closer to a solution by what you put forward.

He's telling you why the Fed would not repeat the mistake that contributed to the Great Depression—and it didn't in 2008 after Lehman went broke and banks were reluctant to lend money to each other.

We may not be interested, but I am because what the Fed does impacts my portfolio.

Government spending is not why workers have flat real incomes.

Who says it's at the expense of the worker? Besides, Congress isn't "filling the gap" and is instead doing what Congress does—spend money. There is no intention of shoring up aggregate demand. Liberal Democrats have a long list of spending wants built up over 2011-2021. Thanks to Manchin, Biden has been able to beat down the liberal want list. Were I Biden, Manchin would be high on my Christmas card list.

Anyway, it depends what the government spends the money on. I happen to think government wastes a lot of money, so it may well be at the worker's expense.

 

No. I introduce a concept like who can quit a job or collectively bargain and back it up with US law and state law pertaining to the state being discussed. I present concepts like the difference between striking and quitting a job and back it up with US law and the US Constitution. I introduce concepts like socialism addressing ownership of production and back it up with sources from Stanford University.

In contrast you make general statements that conflict with US law, the Constitution, state law, academia, etc. And once in awhile post a graph you don’t understand.

You can say it all you want but it’s still not true. As usual your opinion conflicts with reality and evidence.

CFI is a prominent provider of online accredited education to the financial sector. They show the types of socialism you think are all that exist are revolutionary. Yet there are many others including market socialism which is closer to what I live. And democratic socialism that I think we agree fails because of collectivization of things like housing etc.


https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/socialism/

You can call your posts whatever you wish. And you can disagree with PF rules. I’m just trying to help you be more credible.

Why do you think economics is some secret domain nobody can know about? Critical thinkers realized the creation of the Fed and almost immediate unprecedented catastrophic economic meltdown was not a coincidence.

Why do you think nobody pays attention to the Fed or what economists say and do? Do you think remarks like what you posted from Ben are locked away in some vault and only see the light of day if you post a link?

LOL. You don’t think a worker owning production has any bearing on productivity pay gaps? Who decides my compensation? If I produce more I benefit 100% from that increase in production. If I was an employee with no ownership and no democratic control I may see a small portion of that increase in productivity or none at all.

Look at Publix grocery stores. The company is employee owned. The company outperforms competition in almost every measurable metric. Except hourly “wage”. But many employees are millionaires and the average employee including stockers and mop bucket drivers owns an average of $150,000 of the business. When stock and dividends are accounted for the productivity pay gap for Public workers is minuscule compared to their unionized peers.

Publix has profit margins double their competition. Almost no long term debt. Their stock, if available on the open market, would be highly sought after and a top performer. But only employees can own it.

Is it a perfect model of worker ownership? No. But it is far superior to unionized labor. Not even in the same ball park. Yet you say this model isn’t a “solution” to the problem you are complaining about all the time.

Socialism that isn’t collectivism offers a solution. Yet you are stuck on collectivist unionization that returns far less productivity compensation to workers than worker ownership of production.

It can’t really make the same mistake. There is now no barrier to money creation and injection and no public or political pressure to refrain from injection.

We have accepted sustained inflation almost 9 times higher than before Fed monetary intervention in exchange for much less volatility. Only those that operate on principles of instant gratification can see that as advantageous, yet many do.

We are both interested. But only I am concerned about the worker. You want the Fed to maximize your ability to get as much of that productivity pay gap for yourself at the expense of workers as possible.

That’s not what I said. I said we should be concerned the Fed allows expansion of government spending at the expense of the worker.

The Fed policy of sustained inflation most certainly affects real income of workers.

Spending money is exactly what is filling in the gap when the Fed slows money creation. Congress essential injects money when the Fed stops. This allows the inflation that perpetuates increased spending power of government at the expense of the worker to continue unabated. It’s a shell game that has you so fooled you don’t recognize it even when I point it out.

Inflation always costs the worker and advantages the government. That’s the whole point of the Fed. You are not told that by those that wish to continue to benefit though…

Agree the government wastes money. But government is and has been for a long time just a poster child for the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. So waste should be expected.

 

Pay close attention. If workers can quit en masse in support of demands the employer only hire union workers, right-to-work laws are meaningless.

So, you think it's okay for workers to strike if the employer has s nonunion employee in a job otherwise held by a union member?

Idiotic blather.

Pay close attention. If workers can quit en masse in support of demands the employer only hire union workers, right-to-work laws are meaningless.

Just because yahoos and ideologues decide income redistribution is "socialism," it doesn't mean that it is or that it has the economic impact of collective ownership.

Why do you make up positions for people?

Fact not in evidence.

You may not pay attention to the Fed, but others do.

An absurd claim about what I believe.

There are few worker-owned businesses of significant size.

Whatever all that means.

Nonsensical. This is our record on inflation.

Yeah, I don't care about workers... I was a union table officer and head of bargaining for a teachers' union because I don't care about workers.

Government spending is not necessarily at the "expense of the worker."

The Fed has a 2% inflation target to avoid higher real interest rates.

This is plain absurd. You can't prove your claim (see above).

We created the Fed so we could create more inflation?

 

If workers are prevented from quitting the 13th Amendment is violated. Slavery is a right reserved for the state under the Constitution. Citizens (businesses) can no longer legally enslave others.

You are essentially advocating for slavery.

What I “think” is irrelevant. Slavery is illegal. And US law allows for collective bargaining by any number of employees (2 or more) whether they call themselves a “union” or “Uncle Sam’s Porcelain Dolls”. I’ve already posted the Constitution and US code to demonstrate this to be true.

No a fact. In this post you posted a graph you don’t understand. Explanation below.

We can not violate the 13th Amendment no matter how much you wish to. If you want to be in the slave business you must partner with government through the prison system.

I know you wish to violate the Constitution but you can’t.

Collective ownership is for fools who don’t understand human nature or for despots who do understand human nature and wish to benefit at other’s expense.

Redistribution of capitalism’s largess is not socialism. In that we agree.

More emojis. Cool.

I simply asked why you don’t think I could know about Fed policy or the Great Depression. If you can’t answer my question you can’t answer my question.

Yes, it’s a fact if critical thinkers had not pushed back on the claims through the years that the Fed was not implicated in the Great Depression fiasco people like Ben would never have had to admit the truth.

I not only pay attention, I’m concerned about how the Fed decreases real income for workers.

I did not make a claim about what you believe. I asked a very clear and concise question. A question is not a claim.

Irrelevant. The fact remains over 20% of IS workers are participating in some form of worker owned/controlled business model.

The fact remains the worker owned model results in superior productivity, net profit, and more equitable worker compensation than unionization.

The fact remains worker owned/controlled business models are far more effective at decreasing the productivity pay gap than tantrums and attempts to violate the Constitution.

You refer to collective bargaining power in the context of labor unions, yet you don’t understand unionization is collectivism?

So you have just provided solid evidence you do in fact post graphs you do not understand. I made the claim inflation is nearly 9 times higher after creation of the Fed. And you call that nonsense and post a graph that only includes data post-1960! The Fed was created in 1913. You either don’t understand your graph or you have no historical knowledge of the Federal Reserve (and historical inflation).

I’ve run the numbers from raw data in the past, but let’s look at what the Fed says itself.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicat...tory-of-prices-inflation-since-founding-of-us

Of course the Fed conveniently leaves out the approximate 20% inflation from 1916-1920 from their figures, but even with this sleight of hand we see post Fed inflation 8.75 times higher than pre Fed inflation. Just like I said!

Who knows why you adore unions. But the fact your concern with the Fed is that they maximize your ability to take compensation from workers they are due for their productivity means you don’t care about the productivity pay gap. You are profiting from the p/p gap and attempt to maximize it while claiming on PF the p/p gap is a bad thing.

But any time government takes from the worker it is. Inflation is directly taking wages and savings from workers.

No. Interest rates pre Fed were relatively low and stable. After creation of the Fed interest rate volatility has increased substantially and hit highs four times anything seen pre Fed. The recent lows are fueling inflation and have allowed you to extract more compensation from the worker through inflation and the stock market.



You have been misled.

It just happened right in front of your face over the last few months! The Fed has slowed money creation/injection and Congress immediately passed the “inflation reduction bill” full of inflation fueling spending! There’s nothing to “prove”, it’s just an obvious reality.

What’s absurd is it isn’t obvious to someone with credentials you claim.

Yes. So there will be continual inflation and never corrections. The Fed is there primarily to perpetually increase the spending power of government without congress having to levy taxes or default on debt.