nobody wants to be productive, because of the new wave of entitlement.
this is both objectively and subjectively true.
everyone wants the checks, nobody wants to run at 130% capacity afterwards to help pay those checks off.
this point is refuted by the "da globalist cabal stole the productivity", but the math shows otherwise.
the pandemic created debts that the average person must repay.
Do not raise your hourly rates, expect people to work harder. That is what productivity actually is, working harder for the same income.
:pikachu face:
You need to build 15 things in 10 hours for more productivity, but if you do that you get the income of 15 things, which is more income which you can use to pay that $1200 debt you're talking about.
Build 15 things in 10 hours and get paid the same, means the employer pockets the extra 5 things of income. People who don't want to prop up businesses with more work for the same income is not the same as people not wanting to work.
No. We don't.
I am unmoved by your attempt at argument from authority.
There was no argument from authority. This is Modern Monetary Theory in action.
It is just the other side they didn't show you.
To whom shall we make out the check sir?
Sounds like you're the one who's complaining.
[Stopping here because the only thing I really owe you at this point would break the posting guidelines.]
True wages must go down for the surplus. If wages went up, productivity/gdp wouldn't increase, and we would make no progress on our nation deficit, and continue to see inflation.
I am not complaining, just stating the inconvenient, economic, hard truths; shooting the messenger is the laziest (apt) way of dismissing the argument, which is all you are mentally prepared to do.
you don't owe me anything, since you cannot combat my argument with logic; everyone owes everyone a productivity increase to make up for the free $1200 checks, and the printing of money.
your entitlement is showing. my point, again, demonstrated within.
complain to get free money, then complain the money isn't worth as much. you cant have both.
all my points, QED, with your responses so far.
anyone else wanna disprove anything I have stated?
read up MMT. then come back with some facts.
ill wait.
Sure you are. Your comment is a classic example of what I call 'sore winner' literature.
It's characterized by: a superior pontificating tone, a sense of entitlement tell others what to do, a certain intellectual rigidity, a tendency to assign readings, but most important of all, a tone of having been cheated out of something by random strangers on the internet.
Calculate your share, if you really must have it so badly, and I'll cut a penny down and mail it to you then.
how am I simultaneously a winner, but feel cheated?
again, you literally quoted three words, strawmanned it up, and ignore the rest.
no substance to be found.
the "superior" tone is your perception, but if the issue being discussed (peoples not wanting to work), no discourse can be had without hints of condescension.
the labor shortage in the market cannot be discussed, because you think it is condescending... what a fantastic exchange of ideas, i am sure you are littered with nuanced views. /s (you are not.)
ironically, coincidentally, and incidentally, I am statistically probably the most "impoverished" here; allowing me actual insight into the markets you claim to have a moral aptitude towards.
people do not want to work. the left think the billionaires should make robots do it (see the above poster), the right are just tired of low-paying jobs that prevent them from being on welfare.
i know you didn't get this far, but if you have any substinant rebuttal to any or all of my arguments, im sure you would had presented at least one by now, instead of again, ad hominem and strawmans.
calling you a "fucktwit", deservingly, but also so @dang can read this, and maybe put thought into comment rankings, if he has some brain cells left from staring at walls of shallow dialogue all day.
There's nothing to refute because you can't refute tone. Plus it's not my job to be your debate partner for free.
Basically, either don't tell people what to do, or set conditions on how they should debate you, or you will get voted down.
But really, I suspect you are getting just what you want, really, pissing people off and making a stink.
> "your entitlement is showing."
> "complain to get free money, then complain the money isn't worth as much. you cant have both."
> "anyone else wanna disprove anything I have stated?"
1) your strawman of me complaining to get free money is something which didn't happen.
2) your strawman of me complaining that the money isn't worth as much didn't happen.
3) your repeated comments about "entitlement" is trolling ad-hominem, not something for disproving.
4) if I borrow $1200 from the bank, I don't "owe the bank a productivity increase", I owe the bank $1200. Whether that comes from me being more productive, or working more time into the future, is up to me.
5) The idea that people being more productive ==> paying down the national debt doesn't seem to match what happens. USA GDP has increased from 1Tn in 1970 to 23TN today. Or $5k per person to $65k per person(!)[1] National debt has risen consistently since 1970, not been paid down by this increase. And your statement that paying down the national debt == "progress". Progress to what goal? Nobody in power appears to care about the national deficit. It's only a talking point for Republicans to criticise Democrats. It's a fiction number that is expected to grow forever, there's no plan, attempt or incentive to ever pay it off. It's not a household debt, no President, politician, senator, will be held personally accountable for it.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-...
4) if I borrow $1200 from the bank, I don't "owe the bank a productivity increase", I owe the bank $1200. Whether that comes from me being more productive, or working more time into the future, is up to me
bad analogy, since printing money is not a loan in traditional sense - government debt doesn't really make sense - it is a tax on future users of the currency, by means of productivity per dollar is decreased.
more like, if everyone got a loan, and the bank said "trust me bro"...because the dollars were literally invented, not loaned - which increases the total M1 money supply.
the hope was the velocity of the money would also increase, which inflation helps with - stagnating cash loses value constantly.
one way to measure this "tax" (the damage done by inflation) is by measuring the value of the dollar per common good (the BigMac index) and is by debt/GDP/person. Of course it is a political bartering chip; everything is, but is also a useful measure of this change in buying power relative to the dollar.
Business are going to be the first to reap the rewards of the increase in productivity. As they should. Taxes imply the government will be the secondary beneficiary.
A well-executed MMT would then use the excess capital for common-good reinvest, a la the Build Back better plan.
It's a dream, but that is how they hoped it worked.
I do know that one of the biggest single costs the average person faces is housing. And I know that housing can be built in large quantities in economies with a tenth the GDP/capita of the current G7 average.
I don’t by into the narrative that capitalism is pure evil (or anything even remotely close to that), nevertheless I think that unless effort is made to avoid them, undesirable Nash Equilibria can form within it, and that is why we don’t collectively have 10-20 hour work weeks with the standard of life from 1970: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-ho...
right, and because we do not have a fair market with price discover, and regulation has hindered progress, this has led to a basic living need to become a speculative asset, much to the loss of the average homebuyer.
if you expect your home to grow in value, you cannot also expect your son or daughter to be able to afford it in the same way.
But I certainly agree with you about the second point, it’s frustratingly hard to getting the relevant people to accept that allowing homes to become investments also makes them unaffordable.
people not working, less productivity
"Savings" are things that are produced but not consumed. During "lockdown", consumption exceeded production. That means, globally, years of savings were consumed.
When savings are reduced, prosperity is reduced. Savings will have to be rebuilt to return to prosperity.
This is objectively false; many people want to be productive. Demonstrated by things like: people working for money, people changing jobs to get more money, people signing up for courses to learn new skills, people founding new companies. Let's see census.gov[1] big graph of new business applications: steady at 200k/month from 2005 through 2015, increased to 300k/month by 2020, then CLIMBED to 400-500k/month through 2020 and 2021 and into 2022.
> "nobody wants to run at 130% capacity afterwards to help pay those checks off"
The Bureau of Labor Statistics[2] (which, incidentally, reports productivity improvements in latter half of 2021) says "Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index of real output by an index of hours worked by all persons". Which rebukes your claim "That is what productivity actually is, working harder for the same income." More hours for more output is not an improvement in productivity.
Nobody wants to make well-reasoned arguments when they can lazily sneer at other people being "entitled" and then think that makes their point for them.
> "the pandemic created debts that the average person must repay."
> "this point is refuted by the "da globalist cabal stole the productivity", but the math shows otherwise."
Really? Because here in the UK we have a company that was founded for £100 and then awarded a £110,000,000 contract to supply PPE to the NHS. A Government which has since written off £9Bn of PPE spending after it delivered nothing useful, £2.6Bn of that delivered PPE that wasn't good enough quality, and we have a court ruling that the Government's allocation of money for PPE during the pandemic was unlawful[3], and "Tansparency International UK said its analysis indicated "apparent systemic biases in the award of PPE contracts that favoured those with political connections to the party of government"".
"Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner called for an independent investigation to "get to the bottom of how £3.5bn of taxpayers' cash were handed out in crony contracts and ensure it can never happen again". Liberal Democrat health spokesperson Daisy Cooper described the ruling as a "damning judgement" and said: "Not only did the Conservatives give their mates privileged access to lucrative Covid contracts, they did it unlawfully.""
Barrister, Law school Professor and Director of the GoodLaw Project Tweeted[4] "Fortunes large enough to sustain generations are being made by those lucky or well connected enough to win them" -
"Test and Trace’s “staggering” £22bn annual cost has not been justified by any clear evidence of its impact on the Covid pandemic, parliament’s spending watchdog has declared.*" - [5]
But nooooo, this is just "da globalist cabal stole it" which you switch to mocking "da" language because the entitled lazy plebs are dumber than you XD XD XD right?
[1] https://www.census.gov/econ/bfs/index.html
[2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/prod2_02032022.htm
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037
[4] https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1314114913850318848
[5] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/test-and-trace-treats...