Ted Yoho is a piece of trash

[WEATHER DOT COM]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  You can smell Tiberius from 50 miles away hence the recommendation to change his underwear.  There is nothing more to it for the rest of us but if you libs want to kick off a circle jerk then that is your business.

 

Did you look in the mirror and pop your zits before or after this humdinger of hilarity?

[Tiberius]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes.

Lol, I thought so. What a joke 

4 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  You can smell Tiberius from 50 miles away hence the recommendation to change his underwear.  There is nothing more to it for the rest of us but if you libs want to kick off a circle jerk then that is your business.

You putting your nose in the air to sniff for my dirty underwear? Scum bag 

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Lol, I thought so. What a joke 

 

Who do you think should set wages?

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Who do you think should set wages?

For who? 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 8/3/2020 at 11:29 AM, 3rdnlng said:

What with all of the companies finding that they can reduce their onsite employees in NYC (and other cities) the restaurant and bar business and other service industries are going to be hurt, especially in Manhattan. I've read that Amazon is snooping around Midtown for massive office space. The only reason (IMO) that they would be doing this is because of the high vacancy rates and lower rent.

 

 

...Amazon is building two distribution facilities near Syracuse, one of which is $300+ mil and almost 4 million sq ft, one of the world's largest warehouse facilities.....they were to build a similar $300+ mil facility in Buffalo but it didn't materialize...they are now looking in Orleans County, specifically Medina NY, east of Niagara Falls NY for a similar $300 mil facility....

[RochesterRob]

50 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Lol, I thought so. What a joke 

You putting your nose in the air to sniff for my dirty underwear? Scum bag 

  Putting my nose in the air?  Puck no.  You're like Kodak Park (back in the day) where the pollution was EVERYWHERE fool.  

[ComradeKayAdams]

18 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Companies I'm familiar with take the position of making conditions/pay good enough so that there is no need for a union. By law, no company can prevent the formation of a union. 

 

I probably misphrased the “no allowed labor unions” remark. Amazon doesn’t officially disallow unions because they can’t, but they do everything they think they can legally get away with to discourage their formation. In other words, Amazon higher-ups have been actively and quite aggressively skirting the 1935 NLRA as a company policy. They’ve been repeatedly caught red-handed doing so! Only after vigorous outside political pressure did Amazon finally cave and raise their lowest wages to $15 an hour. But their warehouse working conditions are still pretty terrible by conventional 2020 labor standards. Amazon even openly justifies their company practices by claiming they run such a unique business model that depends on unusually super-fast service. Unions would obviously threaten to put an end to it all.

 

For some types of jobs and for some industries (like the companies you say you’re familiar with), unions aren’t all that necessary because the laws of labor supply and labor demand suffice. For other jobs and industries, however, this is not the case. Why? Classic market failures due to competition distortions. Labor market monopsonies for low-skilled workers and top-heavy consumer pool wealth asymmetries are two example reasons. And yes, I realize the laws of labor economics work in the opposite direction too! Unions can create labor monopoly conditions and might push for adverse things like overly high minimum wages, for example, that raise unemployment and raise the costs of goods and services onto the consumer. People on the right these days seem to hate teacher unions. People on the left these days seem to hate police unions. But we can all love prospective Amazon unions because they’re nowhere near a situation right now that favors the labor side over the employer side! We know this to be the case because many low-wage Amazon employees still rely on social welfare programs such as food stamps. The taxpayers are effectively subsidizing companies like Amazon for their employee underpayment practices. And I hope we can all agree that any American willing to work 40 hours a week should not have to live in abject poverty!

 

 

13 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Who do you think should set wages?

 

The private market should set wages just as it should set the prices for goods and services. But then government should have a role as well in looking at the resulting economic data and making a few (intelligent) corrections for market failures. These corrections include appropriate living wage determinations plus a small handful of price control/fixing measures in certain industries. So your standard mixed economy, basically, with the private market the main driver and the government a reactionary stabilizer in a constant cycle of market evaluation and market modification.

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I probably misphrased the “no allowed labor unions” remark. Amazon doesn’t officially disallow unions because they can’t, but they do everything they think they can legally get away with to discourage their formation. In other words, Amazon higher-ups have been actively and quite aggressively skirting the 1935 NLRA as a company policy. They’ve been repeatedly caught red-handed doing so! Only after vigorous outside political pressure did Amazon finally cave and raise their lowest wages to $15 an hour. But their warehouse working conditions are still pretty terrible by conventional 2020 labor standards. Amazon even openly justifies their company practices by claiming they run such a unique business model that depends on unusually super-fast service. Unions would obviously threaten to put an end to it all.

 

For some types of jobs and for some industries (like the companies you say you’re familiar with), unions aren’t all that necessary because the laws of labor supply and labor demand suffice. For other jobs and industries, however, this is not the case. Why? Classic market failures due to competition distortions. Labor market monopsonies for low-skilled workers and top-heavy consumer pool wealth asymmetries are two example reasons. And yes, I realize the laws of labor economics work in the opposite direction too! Unions can create labor monopoly conditions and might push for adverse things like overly high minimum wages, for example, that raise unemployment and raise the costs of goods and services onto the consumer. People on the right these days seem to hate teacher unions. People on the left these days seem to hate police unions. But we can all love prospective Amazon unions because they’re nowhere near a situation right now that favors the labor side over the employer side! We know this to be the case because many low-wage Amazon employees still rely on social welfare programs such as food stamps. The taxpayers are effectively subsidizing companies like Amazon for their employee underpayment practices. And I hope we can all agree that any American willing to work 40 hours a week should not have to live in abject poverty!

 

 

 

The private market should set wages just as it should set the prices for goods and services. But then government should have a role as well in looking at the resulting economic data and making a few (intelligent) corrections for market failures. These corrections include appropriate living wage determinations plus a small handful of price control/fixing measures in certain industries. So your standard mixed economy, basically, with the private market the main driver and the government a reactionary stabilizer in a constant cycle of market evaluation and market modification.

Two things:

 

Have you ever worked in the private sector?

 

I asked Tiberius who should set wages and you answered for him, effectively letting him off the hook. I wanted his answer. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Two things:

 

Have you ever worked in the private sector?

 

I asked Tiberius who should set wages and you answered for him, effectively letting him off the hook. I wanted his answer. 

 

Yes, I currently work for a private company. No union membership. Early-career white-collar professional job. Why do you ask?

 

Oops! Sorry…I didn’t mean to ruin your discussion with Tiberius. I assumed his answer was eventually going to be some small variation of my vague economic statism response. He definitely doesn’t come across as a laissez-faire kind of guy, but he has never struck me as a planned economy or Chinese dirigism type either?? Ok I’ll shut up now and let Tiberius speak for himself…

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Yes, I currently work for a private company. No union membership. Early-career white-collar professional job. Why do you ask?

 

Oops! Sorry…I didn’t mean to ruin your discussion with Tiberius. I assumed his answer was eventually going to be some small variation of my vague economic statism response. He definitely doesn’t come across as a laissez-faire kind of guy, but he has never struck me as a planned economy or Chinese dirigism type either?? Ok I’ll shut up now and let Tiberius speak for himself…

Kay....thanks for keeping it semi-short. This is an internet chat room! Not a platform for your personal manifesto for God’s sake! 

[ALF]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Kay....thanks for keeping it semi-short. This is an internet chat room! Not a platform for your personal manifesto for God’s sake! 

 

We are really fortunate to have economy experts like GG and Kay to share their knowledge here.  

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, ALF said:

 

We are really fortunate to have economy experts like GG and Kay to share their knowledge here.  

Knowledge sharing, I love. Blathering on....not so much. ?

[3rdnlng]

10 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Yes, I currently work for a private company. No union membership. Early-career white-collar professional job. Why do you ask?

 

Oops! Sorry…I didn’t mean to ruin your discussion with Tiberius. I assumed his answer was eventually going to be some small variation of my vague economic statism response. He definitely doesn’t come across as a laissez-faire kind of guy, but he has never struck me as a planned economy or Chinese dirigism type either?? Ok I’ll shut up now and let Tiberius speak for himself…

Your theories reminded me of this:

 

https://genius.com/Good-will-hunting-good-will-hunting-park-bench-scene-annotated

 

SEAN: So if I asked you about art you’d probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo? You know a lot about him. Life’s work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can’t tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You’ve never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling. Seen that.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Personally, I don’t give a ***** about all that, because you know what? I can’t learn anything from you I can’t read in some *****in’ book. Unless you wanna talk about you, who you are. And I’m fascinated. I’m in. But you don’t wanna do that, do you, sport? You’re terrified of what you might say. Your move, chief.

[ComradeKayAdams]

23 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Kay....thanks for keeping it semi-short. This is an internet chat room! Not a platform for your personal manifesto for God’s sake! 

 

People come to PPP for different reasons, SoCal Deek. Some check in for the news updates, online editorial links, and Twitter posts. Some enjoy the funny memes. Others just want their political predispositions validated here and reinforced. A select few come here for the dopamine hits they get for calling AOC a stupid c-word, with the c-word not standing for “communist.”

 

There’s also a group who enjoys open-minded political discourse with people who think differently from them, often at whatever post lengths deemed necessary to advance the discussion. You’re possibly not among the lattermost type. That’s quite all right, really, but stop hectoring others here into conforming to your personal standards and expectations for this place. I’m unaware of any maximum word limit per post before one’s account is suspended. Since February, I’ve received 8 different PM’s from people thanking me for taking the time to type my lengthy posts. Most (but not all) were left-leaning lurkers supporting me for my yeoman’s service in the fervently right-wing environment that is PPP. What you may consider using a platform for personal manifestos is what others call sharing political opinions on an internet message board.

 

I suggest that you, Nanker, and Bray Wyatt (and any others who feel the same way but are too bashful to “like” your post) go ahead and block my user name if you can’t deal with the post lengths or the content quality anymore. My longest posts, by the way, are not any longer than most news articles and opinion pieces you’ll find online. So I dunno…maybe y’all should also consider getting checked for ADHD??

 

23 hours ago, ALF said:

We are really fortunate to have economy experts like GG and Kay to share their knowledge here.  

 

Thank you very much for the kind words, ALF! Much appreciated! But please think of me as an “enthusiastic amateur internet economist” and not as an “economy expert.”

 

23 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Knowledge sharing, I love. Blathering on....not so much. ?

 

The definition of “blather” is “to talk foolishly at length.” I won’t disagree with the length part, but the foolish part I consider highly insulting. I’ll leave it at that.

 

12 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Your theories reminded me of this:

 

https://genius.com/Good-will-hunting-good-will-hunting-park-bench-scene-annotated

 

Good Will Hunting* is an excellent movie, but I don’t see how your “experience trumps knowledge” ad hominem attack is going to help advance your argument(s). Quality socioeconomic data is far more persuasive than personal anecdotes. And what exactly do you mean by my “theories?” Are we still discussing Amazon NYC versus AOC and the Amazon company versus its warehouse employees? Or are you referring to labor economics now and social democratic philosophy?

 

If you insist on focusing on human experiences, then first we should be listening to what the employees at Amazon warehouses and what Amazon business executives have to say. Or if you’re thinking about my more general “theories,” then we should be listening from people who have lived and worked in both the US and in social democracy countries abroad…in both public and private sectors…low-wage laborers and business owners alike. That would be far more interesting and relevant than my own lived experiences. Anyhoo…I could be a successful multi-decade small-business owner or a 400-lb middle-aged Antifa foot soldier living in her parents’ basement…but I could have access to the same international socioeconomic data that best informs us of how the actual world works.

 

If you’d like, we can agree to disagree and then let this thread die the miserable death it so richly deserves. If you’re perfectly fine with Amazon’s practices on both ethical and economic grounds, then so be it. And yes…Ted Yoho is still a piece of trash.

 

* - Believe it or not, as soon as I heard that AOC endorsed Bernie during her convention video, the first thought that ran through my head was: how do you like THEM apples, DNC?! Ha!!

[SoCal Deek]

Kay....Restraint is also an admirable trait. I’m not questioning your intelligence, motivation, or anything of the sort. I simply can’t believe that every single one of your posts needs to be that long. I’d love to hear what you have to say. My only suggestion is that you self-edit a tad. ?

Edited August 19, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[KRC]

On 8/18/2020 at 6:34 AM, RealKayAdams said:

 

I probably misphrased the “no allowed labor unions” remark. Amazon doesn’t officially disallow unions because they can’t, but they do everything they think they can legally get away with to discourage their formation. In other words, Amazon higher-ups have been actively and quite aggressively skirting the 1935 NLRA as a company policy. They’ve been repeatedly caught red-handed doing so! Only after vigorous outside political pressure did Amazon finally cave and raise their lowest wages to $15 an hour. But their warehouse working conditions are still pretty terrible by conventional 2020 labor standards. Amazon even openly justifies their company practices by claiming they run such a unique business model that depends on unusually super-fast service. Unions would obviously threaten to put an end to it all.

 

For some types of jobs and for some industries (like the companies you say you’re familiar with), unions aren’t all that necessary because the laws of labor supply and labor demand suffice. For other jobs and industries, however, this is not the case. Why? Classic market failures due to competition distortions. Labor market monopsonies for low-skilled workers and top-heavy consumer pool wealth asymmetries are two example reasons. And yes, I realize the laws of labor economics work in the opposite direction too! Unions can create labor monopoly conditions and might push for adverse things like overly high minimum wages, for example, that raise unemployment and raise the costs of goods and services onto the consumer. People on the right these days seem to hate teacher unions. People on the left these days seem to hate police unions. But we can all love prospective Amazon unions because they’re nowhere near a situation right now that favors the labor side over the employer side! We know this to be the case because many low-wage Amazon employees still rely on social welfare programs such as food stamps. The taxpayers are effectively subsidizing companies like Amazon for their employee underpayment practices. And I hope we can all agree that any American willing to work 40 hours a week should not have to live in abject poverty!

 

 

 

 

 

There is no reason to single out Amazon for working conditions. As someone who has worked in fulfillment and distribution centers for Amazon and a bunch of others in the e-commerce space, Amazon is no different as far as working conditions.

 

 

Quote

The private market should set wages just as it should set the prices for goods and services. But then government should have a role as well in looking at the resulting economic data and making a few (intelligent) corrections for market failures. These corrections include appropriate living wage determinations plus a small handful of price control/fixing measures in certain industries. So your standard mixed economy, basically, with the private market the main driver and the government a reactionary stabilizer in a constant cycle of market evaluation and market modification.

 

I am absolutely against this part of your post. The government should not selectively hinder certain industries. If you want to market to drive it, then the market drives it. Period.

[Orlando Buffalo]

On 8/18/2020 at 6:34 AM, RealKayAdams said:

 

I probably misphrased the “no allowed labor unions” remark. Amazon doesn’t officially disallow unions because they can’t, but they do everything they think they can legally get away with to discourage their formation. In other words, Amazon higher-ups have been actively and quite aggressively skirting the 1935 NLRA as a company policy. They’ve been repeatedly caught red-handed doing so! Only after vigorous outside political pressure did Amazon finally cave and raise their lowest wages to $15 an hour. But their warehouse working conditions are still pretty terrible by conventional 2020 labor standards. Amazon even openly justifies their company practices by claiming they run such a unique business model that depends on unusually super-fast service. Unions would obviously threaten to put an end to it all.

 

For some types of jobs and for some industries (like the companies you say you’re familiar with), unions aren’t all that necessary because the laws of labor supply and labor demand suffice. For other jobs and industries, however, this is not the case. Why? Classic market failures due to competition distortions. Labor market monopsonies for low-skilled workers and top-heavy consumer pool wealth asymmetries are two example reasons. And yes, I realize the laws of labor economics work in the opposite direction too! Unions can create labor monopoly conditions and might push for adverse things like overly high minimum wages, for example, that raise unemployment and raise the costs of goods and services onto the consumer. People on the right these days seem to hate teacher unions. People on the left these days seem to hate police unions. But we can all love prospective Amazon unions because they’re nowhere near a situation right now that favors the labor side over the employer side! We know this to be the case because many low-wage Amazon employees still rely on social welfare programs such as food stamps. The taxpayers are effectively subsidizing companies like Amazon for their employee underpayment practices. And I hope we can all agree that any American willing to work 40 hours a week should not have to live in abject poverty!

 

 

 

The private market should set wages just as it should set the prices for goods and services. But then government should have a role as well in looking at the resulting economic data and making a few (intelligent) corrections for market failures. These corrections include appropriate living wage determinations plus a small handful of price control/fixing measures in certain industries. So your standard mixed economy, basically, with the private market the main driver and the government a reactionary stabilizer in a constant cycle of market evaluation and market modification.

Kay there are two major disagreements I have with you, though you definitely have a thoughtful consistency. 

1) why does working 40 hours mean you should be paid well? If your skill level is such that you can not produce enough profit for the company would it be better if no one hired them? You can work at Publix and get OT if you are a good worker and clear $30k in your first year, not rich but you can survive. 

2) you point out how government is reactionary when it comes to its modifications of the market failures, but that is problem? Who decides where the market failed? The govt tried to correct for an "affordable housing" failure and we ended with the 2008 economy crash. Markets don't fail in the long term but govt can cause long term impacts by manipulating the market.

[3rdnlng]

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Kay

Good Will Hunting* is an excellent movie, but I don’t see how your “experience trumps knowledge” ad hominem attack is going to help advance your argument(s). Quality socioeconomic data is far more persuasive than personal anecdotes. And what exactly do you mean by my “theories?” Are we still discussing Amazon NYC versus AOC and the Amazon company versus its warehouse employees? Or are you referring to labor economics now and social democratic philosophy?

 

If you insist on focusing on human experiences, then first we should be listening to what the employees at Amazon warehouses and what Amazon business executives have to say. Or if you’re thinking about my more general “theories,” then we should be listening from people who have lived and worked in both the US and in social democracy countries abroad…in both public and private sectors…low-wage laborers and business owners alike. That would be far more interesting and relevant than my own lived experiences. Anyhoo…I could be a successful multi-decade small-business owner or a 400-lb middle-aged Antifa foot soldier living in her parents’ basement…but I could have access to the same international socioeconomic data that best informs us of how the actual world works.

 

If you’d like, we can agree to disagree and then let this thread die the miserable death it so richly deserves. If you’re perfectly fine with Amazon’s practices on both ethical and economic grounds, then so be it. And yes…Ted Yoho is still a piece of trash.

 

 

Kay, my posting of the scene from Good Will Hunting was to try to convey to you how you (in my eyes) were presenting yourself as a well read person without much real experience. I have the real experience of building very successful teams and then leading them in such a way as to preempt the need for a union. Good pay and great working conditions are necessary but encouraging a family atmosphere while tamping down any attempts to allow workers to force their version of union like  "work rules" is an absolute prerequisite to success. A leader needs to encourage as much participation in the thinking/decision process as possible while setting such standards that promote a high amount of pride in completing the tasks assigned. 

 

With the above said I may have completely read you wrong and can readily admit I could be fullofshit regarding that read. Although I rarely agree with your opinions I find them to be honest and most importantly interesting. Your posts may be lengthy but as long as they are interesting I'll keep reading them.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 8/19/2020 at 8:43 AM, KRC said:

There is no reason to single out Amazon for working conditions. As someone who has worked in fulfillment and distribution centers for Amazon and a bunch of others in the e-commerce space, Amazon is no different as far as working conditions.

 

I am absolutely against this part of your post. The government should not selectively hinder certain industries. If you want to market to drive it, then the market drives it. Period.

 

Interesting perspective, KRC. My opinions derive from a bunch of news articles over the years that have reported on Amazon workplace conditions (plus an amusing South Park episode...no, just kidding). I don’t believe these articles ever made comparisons with the workplace conditions of other e-commerce businesses, so I trust you when you say they are very similar. However, this then raises the question of how the markedly fast-paced nature of distribution/fulfillment centers in the e-commerce industry compare to warehouse labor conditions in other industries? From your personal experiences, do you think special labor laws and unions are needed for them? Also, any thoughts on the Chris Smalls Staten Island Amazon protest?

 

As for government price controls, I insist that they are safe and necessary in very limited situations. So what are these limited situations? Temporary emergencies (food shortages, some types of hyperinflationary circumstances, etc.), systemic market failures (living wage price floors for labor, price ceilings for isolated oligopolistic housing markets, etc.), and competition in already heavily price-controlled markets (global pharmaceutical products, etc.) are three categories of examples. And what do I mean by “necessary?” I’m usually referring to ethical dilemmas, which often overlap with sub-optimal market performances. And what do I mean by “safe?” This one gets tricky…but I’m referring to cases where we have an excellent understanding of the demand for the goods/services/job openings, and a central authority (like in a nationalized industry) can readily control the supply as needed. The trickiness comes about when we can’t easily quantify or forecast the demand, or when the “proper” equilibrium prices for the labor and the materials going into the final product that we aim to control are equally uncertain. It’s when you add too many layers of price controls that you very quickly end up with something akin to the horribly inefficient national market of the 1980’s Soviet Union, which was a direct consequence of all the multiplying product surpluses and shortages.

 

I’m all about data-driven economic decision theory, so I’m also open to alternatives to price controls such as the government providing direct economic stimulus to the people, UBI implementations, market regulations, or creative uses of tax laws and subsidizations. Black markets and other such complications tend to pop up with any of these types of government-mandated market distortions, but choosing instead to do nothing is not normally an option on the table for me...mainly on ethical grounds. I refuse to deify the will of the private markets.

 

On 8/19/2020 at 10:05 AM, Buffalo Timmy said:

Kay there are two major disagreements I have with you, though you definitely have a thoughtful consistency. 

1) why does working 40 hours mean you should be paid well? If your skill level is such that you can not produce enough profit for the company would it be better if no one hired them? You can work at Publix and get OT if you are a good worker and clear $30k in your first year, not rich but you can survive. 

2) you point out how government is reactionary when it comes to its modifications of the market failures, but that is problem? Who decides where the market failed? The govt tried to correct for an "affordable housing" failure and we ended with the 2008 economy crash. Markets don't fail in the long term but govt can cause long term impacts by manipulating the market.

 

1. Working 40 hours per week doesn’t mean a low-skilled worker should be paid “well,” per se, but it does mean he/she should be paid at a level ever so slightly above subsistence for his/her region’s cost of living standards. There’s quite a bit of obvious subjectivity in how our society and how legislators choose to define this level, of course, but I think you get the principle of it all. No one should have to work OT or a second job above a full-time one in order to meet the subsistence threshold. Many people, such as single moms, can’t logistically do so even if they have the energy and willpower. If an employer can’t provide a living wage, then they should not bother hiring in the first place. I don’t ever want our society to regress toward the quasi-slave labor era of the early Industrial Age. If the private market is persistent in its inability to create jobs for these low-skilled workers, then I would turn to the creation of government employment options as a last resort.

 

2. Economists are the ones who define market failures, though there is some ambiguity here depending on the school of thought. We also have experts in specific industries and fields whose jobs are to flag market failures. I think everybody seems to agree on non-competitive markets, market information asymmetries, negative externalities, all types of public goods, and chaotic consumer demand as areas where market failures can occur. The Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, all of our elected politicians, and the American people (in theory) ultimately decide what are market failures and how to handle them.

 

Government’s market interventions always distort the market, for better or worse, and can absolutely lead to serious market failures. The alternative choice of taking no action at all, however, is often intolerable. We use historical precedent and quality economic data to guide government market intervention. Sometimes a bit of guess work is involved (see: CARES Act’s federal unemployment benefit extension debate). The housing crisis that led to the Great Recession is a lot more complicated than a “government = bad, private markets = good” reasoning, but yes I agree that government played a major negative role.

 

I STRONGLY disagree with you when you say that markets don’t fail in the long run! Market failures can last indefinitely or for as long as the causes remain. Too many examples to cite, but my inner eco-socialist can’t help but mention the environmental destruction and resource depletion that unrestrained capitalism creates. Jared Diamond, among many, would argue that this is the biggest reason for why civilizations collapse. My inner Marxist must also emphatically challenge any notion of free markets inherently tending to long-term Pareto efficiencies, given the past 40 years of neoliberalism in relation to the mid-twentieth century…as if Pareto efficiencies are worth aspiring to anyway from a moral point of view…or as if Pareto efficiencies can even be reached since there’s no such thing as a perfect market without any of the market failures I described above. And I would be remiss to not mention Somalia as the most extreme contemporary example of long-term market failures in the absence of government intervention. But even if market failures were to theoretically always self-correct in the long run, we can potentially avoid a lot of human misery along the way by entertaining the possibility of early or preemptive government intervention.

 

On 8/19/2020 at 1:18 PM, 3rdnlng said:

Kay, my posting of the scene from Good Will Hunting was to try to convey to you how you (in my eyes) were presenting yourself as a well read person without much real experience. I have the real experience of building very successful teams and then leading them in such a way as to preempt the need for a union. Good pay and great working conditions are necessary but encouraging a family atmosphere while tamping down any attempts to allow workers to force their version of union like  "work rules" is an absolute prerequisite to success. A leader needs to encourage as much participation in the thinking/decision process as possible while setting such standards that promote a high amount of pride in completing the tasks assigned. 

 

With the above said I may have completely read you wrong and can readily admit I could be fullofshit regarding that read. Although I rarely agree with your opinions I find them to be honest and most importantly interesting. Your posts may be lengthy but as long as they are interesting I'll keep reading them.

 

Um actually…characterizing me as a bookworm with little real-world experience is pretty accurate...so good call, hahaha! You should be proud of your successful team management experience in the private sector, but I still don’t see how that experience makes you better positioned than others here to adjudicate the Amazon labor union issue (or any macroeconomic theory)? Recall that I agreed with you earlier that labor unions aren’t necessary for a large variety of work situations such as your own. But you’re incorrectly extrapolating your positive management experiences onto all other work environments in all other industries. Are you against all labor unions in principle? What about all that historical bad stuff that precipitated the passing of the 1935 NLRA?

 

Our work experiences (or lack thereof) often shape our political orientations, but they often create political blind spots as well. Maybe our disparate politics would converge if we began having similar work experiences? No matter…labor rights situations relate to human ethics, so any thoughtful person is already fully equipped to analyze them (given enough information and enough comparative labor cases) independent of work experience. And in sort of the opposite way, rigorous academic training in macroeconomic theory precludes most of us from tackling complex labor theory at the level that only professional economists can attain (who often never spent a day of their working adult lives outside the ivory tower).

[KRC]

11 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Interesting perspective, KRC. My opinions derive from a bunch of news articles over the years that have reported on Amazon workplace conditions (plus an amusing South Park episode...no, just kidding). I don’t believe these articles ever made comparisons with the workplace conditions of other e-commerce businesses, so I trust you when you say they are very similar.

 

I will break this down into multiple segments to address your questions:

 

Quote

However, this then raises the question of how the markedly fast-paced nature of distribution/fulfillment centers in the e-commerce industry compare to warehouse labor conditions in other industries?

 

E-commerce are better or the same as other industries. Other industries can be worse. I have seen warehouses that have no HVAC, working in intense heat (working conditions of 120 degrees or more) and filth. I have never seen that at e-commerce FC's/DC's, etc. For the type of job that it is, the conditions at e-commerce are pretty good. It is not an office job, so you cannot compare it to sitting at a desk at a perfect temperature, no noise and no dust. However, there is no need for regulation or unionization. There are plenty of e-commerce places to work, so if you do not like your job, go somewhere else. Just like any other industry.

 

Quote

From your personal experiences, do you think special labor laws and unions are needed for them?

 

Nope. See above.

 

Quote

Also, any thoughts on the Chris Smalls Staten Island Amazon protest?

 

I have a hard time believing everything he was saying. I am guessing things could have been better. That goes for every company as all are trying to figure things out on the fly. Outside of that, without being there during the issues he claimed, I cannot comment one way or another. A lot of he said/they said stuff going on, so it is tough to completely believe either side.

 

 

Quote

As for government price controls, I insist that they are safe and necessary in very limited situations. So what are these limited situations? Temporary emergencies (food shortages, some types of hyperinflationary circumstances, etc.), systemic market failures (living wage price floors for labor, price ceilings for isolated oligopolistic housing markets, etc.), and competition in already heavily price-controlled markets (global pharmaceutical products, etc.) are three categories of examples. And what do I mean by “necessary?” I’m usually referring to ethical dilemmas, which often overlap with sub-optimal market performances. And what do I mean by “safe?” This one gets tricky…but I’m referring to cases where we have an excellent understanding of the demand for the goods/services/job openings, and a central authority (like in a nationalized industry) can readily control the supply as needed. The trickiness comes about when we can’t easily quantify or forecast the demand, or when the “proper” equilibrium prices for the labor and the materials going into the final product that we aim to control are equally uncertain. It’s when you add too many layers of price controls that you very quickly end up with something akin to the horribly inefficient national market of the 1980’s Soviet Union, which was a direct consequence of all the multiplying product surpluses and shortages.

 

I do not think that we are going to agree on government price controls, but I respect your opinion. Food may be an exception in dire circumstances, but I will not be on board with price floors for labor. You should be paid what the market demands for the skills you bring to the table. I think that is where we will see the most disagreement in our views.

 

 

Quote

I’m all about data-driven economic decision theory, so I’m also open to alternatives to price controls such as the government providing direct economic stimulus to the people, UBI implementations, market regulations, or creative uses of tax laws and subsidizations. Black markets and other such complications tend to pop up with any of these types of government-mandated market distortions, but choosing instead to do nothing is not normally an option on the table for me...mainly on ethical grounds. I refuse to deify the will of the private markets.

 

I am against the government intruding into the market. I am not against helping people improve their lives, but not an excuse to rely on the government to sustain you. Temporary help is all it should do. I am against UBI. I am on board with a stimulus when times are tough. I think we can agree on some items and disagree on others.

 

 

Thanks as always for healthy discussion. I is a nice change to the destruction of the board from the useless trolls.