If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   World economy growing unevenly. Great, now we have to flatten out the air bubbles in the market   (nytimes.com) divider line 89
    More: Interesting, global economy, advanced economies, structural unemployment, current accounts, Organization for Economic Cooperation, emerging markets, consumer confidence  
•       •       •

1455 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-03 08:41:42 AM  
The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.
 
2013-09-03 09:00:38 AM  

ajgeek: The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.


Ever notice that even when there's no significant change to the underlying tax code, business regulations and employment laws, when unemployment takes hold the first thing you hear from the right is how we need to "reduce the burden" on businesses by changing said code, regulations and laws?

It's almost like those with a vested interest in changing those things are just disingenuously using the natural cycle of unemployment to drive the political demand for such reforms.
 
2013-09-03 09:00:45 AM  

ajgeek: The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.


The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.

Anyway, the point being that it's not a stand alone tax break, it's simply a reduction on the hit if they hire someone full time.
 
2013-09-03 09:57:21 AM  
stop manipulating the money...start working on stuff

right now, all you're doing it shifting the piles around and covering your ass
build things, create things, do things...

amazing how that works
 
2013-09-03 10:06:14 AM  
Someone get a spatula.
 
2013-09-03 10:22:19 AM  

Barfmaker: Anyway, the point being that it's not a stand alone tax break, it's simply a reduction on the hit if they hire someone full time.


Why is any investment in anything other than employment considered an "investment," but employees are "horrible unnecessary cost expenditures that the government needs to assist with?" Human Resources means more than cog in the machine. It's a pity the people who actually work in that system don't understand that.
 
2013-09-03 11:47:31 AM  

ajgeek: Human Resources means more than cog in the machine.


The term "personnel" was updated to "human resources" precisely to frame labor as more of a cog in the machine than actual people.
 
2013-09-03 11:57:23 AM  
There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.
 
2013-09-03 12:01:40 PM  

FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.


Oh now you're just trolling!  Not feeding it this time!
 
2013-09-03 12:04:35 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.

Oh now you're just trolling!  Not feeding it this time!


Why not? Wouldn't this be a good thing? There's plenty to do in this country.  We could put everyone to work for a good wage.
 
2013-09-03 12:08:25 PM  

Barfmaker:   

The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.


Health insurance tied to employment is a terrible idea and policies that further entrench it should be discouraged.
 
2013-09-03 12:22:16 PM  

FarkedOver: We could put everyone to work for a good wage.


I'd ask who would pay said wage, but I already know the answer.  Good luck with that.
 
2013-09-03 12:30:37 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: We could put everyone to work for a good wage.

I'd ask who would pay said wage, but I already know the answer.  Good luck with that.


Short answer: The government.

Long answer: the government after taxing the shiat out of the wealthy and businesses.  You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.  Instead of being uber-rich you would have to settle for being just rich.  *sad trombone*
 
2013-09-03 12:32:16 PM  
put a fork in it
 
2013-09-03 12:34:26 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Barfmaker:   

The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.

Health insurance tied to employment is a terrible idea and policies that further entrench it should be discouraged.


I think you misunderstood. Tax breaks for employers who insure would mean more employers could offer it, rather than a lump sum given to execs so they can distribute it as bonuses to themselves.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:05 PM  

FarkedOver: You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.


A society where you have to pay to not be killed is not one I'd call "stable".
 
2013-09-03 02:07:32 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.

A society where you have to pay to not be killed is not one I'd call "stable".


Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.
 
2013-09-03 02:18:50 PM  

FarkedOver: Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.


So you think people should be able to sit on their asses and have their every need fulfilled by people who work and pay taxes, if they so choose?
 
2013-09-03 02:19:09 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.

A society where you have to pay to not be killed is not one I'd call "stable".


I love me some Engels:

"What the proletarian needs, he can obtain only from this bourgeoisie, which is protected in its monopoly by the power of the state. The proletarian is, therefore, in law and in fact, the slave of the bourgeoisie, which can decree his life or death. It offers him the means of living, but only for an "equivalent", for his work. It even lets him have the appearance of acting from a free choice, of making a contract with free, unconstrained consent, as a responsible agent who has attained his majority."
 
2013-09-03 02:20:32 PM  

GoldSpider: So you think people should be able to sit on their asses and have their every need fulfilled by people who work and pay taxes, if they so choose?


No. Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.  Crazy.... I know!
 
2013-09-03 02:29:34 PM  

FarkedOver: Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.


The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system.  Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism.  Good luck with that.
 
2013-09-03 02:33:02 PM  

GoldSpider: The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system. Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism. Good luck with that.


Not necessarily.  With the improvement of technology and production methods, people should be working less, yet that has not happened.  People should have more free time for themselves and their own endeavors, yet they do not. Why is this? Because capitalism relies on excess labor.  Simply put the more people work and produce, the more profits go up.
 
2013-09-03 02:34:00 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.

The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system.  Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism.  Good luck with that.


Our current system is failing. I, for one, am open alternatives.

Kings or Corporate Executive? WTF is the difference?
 
2013-09-03 02:37:17 PM  

FarkedOver: Simply put the more people work and produce, the more profits go up.


To further compound on this issue, this doesn't necessarily relate to standards of living going up for the working class.  In fact, in this day and age it is creating some sort of hyper-bourgeoisie.  Maybe they see the writing on the wall and are attempting to get ever last bit of productivity out of the people for their own personal gain before their house of cards come crashing down on them, or maybe they are just so far removed from the working class that they just don't give a flying fark.
 
2013-09-03 02:40:03 PM  

Prophet of Loss: GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.

The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system.  Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism.  Good luck with that.

Our current system is failing. I, for one, am open alternatives.

Kings or Corporate Executive? WTF is the difference?


Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.
 
2013-09-03 02:43:11 PM  

GoldSpider: Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.


What's naive is thinking that capitalism can last until the sun burns out.  There will come a point (probably sooner, rather than later) when capitalism will be completely unsustainable.  I have no qualms about highlighting what capitalism is good at (i.e. production), but its shortcomings (allocation) are EXTREMELY detrimental to the rest of the world at large.
 
2013-09-03 02:48:23 PM  

FarkedOver: GoldSpider: Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.

What's naive is thinking that capitalism can last until the sun burns out.  There will come a point (probably sooner, rather than later) when capitalism will be completely unsustainable.  I have no qualms about highlighting what capitalism is good at (i.e. production), but its shortcomings (allocation) are EXTREMELY detrimental to the rest of the world at large.


We cannot continue to grow our economies exponentially year over year. Its not physically possible. Modern Capitalism depends on this premise.
 
2013-09-03 02:51:24 PM  

Prophet of Loss: We cannot continue to grow our economies exponentially year over year. Its not physically possible. Modern Capitalism depends on this premise.


Capitalism depends on a lot of farked up things when you get into it.  It requires that a segment of the population be unemployed, it requires a segment of the world to work in abhorrent conditions in order to satisfy the wants of a select few.  It requires competition among the working class for jobs, thereby driving down wages and creating a race to the bottom mentality.  It requires subjugation on the part of the working class to ruling class that does not create anything except the illusion of power and control.
 
2013-09-03 03:11:50 PM  
You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.
 
2013-09-03 03:18:18 PM  

GoldSpider: You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.


Unfettered capitalism or regulated capitalism, someone, somewhere is being oppressed.  We can agree that today we have more than we probably need.  We agree that this is possible because of capitalism.  The question that I raise is: "At whose expense has this been made possible?" The trap that many people fall into (i'm not saying you, I do give you much more credit than the next statement) is that think capitalism is a form of government of some sort.  The fact is that capital can and has existed under MANY forms from democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, fascist governments, etc. My point is there is no reason to defend an economic model as the ultimate human achievement.  My belief is that humanity can do better and humanity does deserve better than what capitalism has to offer.
 
2013-09-03 03:25:28 PM  

GoldSpider: You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.


For the record, it's always good debating with you man. *fistbump*
 
2013-09-03 03:40:59 PM  

FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.


Lol.  Becasue that platitude would have no unintended consequences whatsoever.  That sounds like a perfect way to become even more uncompetitive in the world.
 
2013-09-03 03:44:34 PM  

HeadLever: Lol. Becasue that platitude would have no unintended consequences whatsoever. That sounds like a perfect way to become even more uncompetitive in the world.


So just keep on keeping on! WOO HOO all aboard the exploitation express.
 
2013-09-03 03:46:17 PM  

FarkedOver: My belief is that humanity can do better and humanity does deserve better than what capitalism has to offer.


Hard to argue with the results.  In historical terms, capitialism has progressed humanity much more than any other system.  You may belive that socalism/communism may be a better path, but most will disagree.
 
2013-09-03 03:47:12 PM  

FarkedOver: So just keep on keeping on! WOO HOO all aboard the exploitation express.


Strawman.  I never said anything about re-evaluting the direction forward.
 
2013-09-03 03:49:51 PM  

HeadLever: Hard to argue with the results. In historical terms, capitialism has progressed humanity much more than any other system. You may belive that socalism/communism may be a better path, but most will disagree.


A planned economy put the first satellite in space, the first man in space, the first woman in space.

I'd be careful arguing capitalism put a man on the moon though, I didn't see any private enterprise logo on any of the apollo missions....
 
2013-09-03 03:50:29 PM  

HeadLever: FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.

Lol.  Becasue that platitude would have no unintended consequences whatsoever.  That sounds like a perfect way to become even more uncompetitive in the world.


No that would not be a problem... if it is only a right to employment.

I am unemployed, hey govt how about a job?

Here is shovel, dig there and move the dirt there.  When done move dirt back and fill hole.  I will give you $.50 an hour up to 4 hours a day.  Congrats you are now employed.
 
2013-09-03 03:50:36 PM  

HeadLever: Strawman. I never said anything about re-evaluting the direction forward.


Are you advocating a mixed economy?
 
2013-09-03 03:51:43 PM  

Saiga410: Here is shovel, dig there and move the dirt there. When done move dirt back and fill hole. I will give you $.50 an hour up to 4 hours a day. Congrats you are now employed.


Take a look at the sad state of the infrastructure in this country. We could benefit from a massive public works project.  Unless you honestly believe private enterprise will do it better....
 
2013-09-03 03:52:09 PM  
At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.
 
2013-09-03 03:53:29 PM  

skozlaw: At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.


WHOA WHO INVITED KARL MARX!?

/you're right.
 
2013-09-03 03:54:21 PM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Here is shovel, dig there and move the dirt there. When done move dirt back and fill hole. I will give you $.50 an hour up to 4 hours a day. Congrats you are now employed.

Take a look at the sad state of the infrastructure in this country. We could benefit from a massive public works project.  Unless you honestly believe private enterprise will do it better....


Publicly funded and privately administered with correctly bounded contracts is the best option for massive public works.
 
2013-09-03 03:55:30 PM  

FarkedOver: GoldSpider: You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.

For the record, it's always good debating with you man. *fistbump*


Agreed, I enjoy our exchanges!
 
2013-09-03 03:55:58 PM  

Saiga410: Publicly funded and privately administered with correctly bounded contracts is the best option for massive public works.


No it is not.  Please see the Big Dig in Boston.  It's still a shiat shot because the contractors skimped on the materials they used.  This is the issue with capitalism, they do ANYTHING for profit even at the expense of public safety.

"The capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will use to hang him."
 
2013-09-03 03:56:41 PM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Publicly funded and privately administered with correctly bounded contracts is the best option for massive public works.

No it is not.  Please see the Big Dig in Boston.  It's still a shiat shot because the contractors skimped on the materials they used.  This is the issue with capitalism, they do ANYTHING for profit even at the expense of public safety.

"The capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will use to hang him."


Further, look at the old WPA projects.  They built high schools which are still standing and STILL being used!
 
2013-09-03 03:58:19 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.

So you think people should be able to sit on their asses and have their every need fulfilled by people who work and pay taxes, if they so choose?


You mean like the investor class that was born into wealth and never worked a day in their lives?
 
2013-09-03 03:58:33 PM  
Direct funding and direct oversight by the government of infrastructure projects is the way to go.  It will cut down on pork and senators and congressmen blowing their rich buddies for deals.
 
2013-09-03 03:58:48 PM  

skozlaw: At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.


You don't sound very boot strappy.

Go back to watching your Obama funded MSNBC, comrade.
 
2013-09-03 04:04:08 PM  

FarkedOver: Are you advocating a mixed economy?


What is a 'mixed economy'?  If you mean regulated capitalism, then yes.
 
2013-09-03 04:05:31 PM  

HeadLever: FarkedOver: Are you advocating a mixed economy?

What is a 'mixed economy'?  If you mean regulated capitalism, then yes.


I was a liberal once too.  I got better.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report