- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 3/29/18 at 6:00 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
we're having a discussion and it's just disheartening
You win my friend...Im quitting this Thread just for you.... it was not my intention to dishearten anyone in regard to their Amazon Prime membership... may all of your purchases be money well spent
Posted on 3/29/18 at 6:38 pm to mattloc
quote:
State subsidization
I don't think you know what 'subsidy' means.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 7:23 pm to mattloc
quote:
You win my friend...Im quitting this Thread just for you.... it was not my intention to dishearten anyone in regard to their Amazon Prime membership... may all of your purchases be money well spent
I don't even make purchases on Amazon. Your snide remarks are merely your attempt to hide your embarrassment at being roasted on this thread.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 7:57 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Definitely not embarrassed... you said you were disheartened... I could see no other reason anyone would be disheartened over a friendly debate. ..... the bottom line is
the US Postal Service should operate as a non-profit entity with Fair competitive rates for all.
Postal fees should not be a tax
Government has no business competing with private Enterprise unless an overriding public interest is at stake
Fair competition amongst private parcel delivery companies would prove the most beneficial, and provide the lowest rates, to the American public and retailers in the long run
The ePacket delivery contract should be abolished
the US Postal Service should operate as a non-profit entity with Fair competitive rates for all.
Postal fees should not be a tax
Government has no business competing with private Enterprise unless an overriding public interest is at stake
Fair competition amongst private parcel delivery companies would prove the most beneficial, and provide the lowest rates, to the American public and retailers in the long run
The ePacket delivery contract should be abolished
Posted on 3/29/18 at 8:00 pm to mattloc
quote:
The ePacket delivery contract should be abolished
I'll go one further. The USPS should just be shut down. Goodbye
Posted on 3/29/18 at 8:42 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
I'll go one further. The USPS should just be shut down.
^^^ fricking moron.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 8:43 pm to Seldom Seen
Says the guy with products made in China.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 8:44 pm to Spock's Eyebrow
quote:
^^^ fricking moron.
Yes you certainly are if you don't believe a private entity would fill the void if there was a demand.
Posted on 3/30/18 at 8:04 am to tigerbaitlawyer
What will happen if all those retail brick and mortars are shut down and boarded up? A google of Cortana malls next to each other across the country. How depressing. You can’t turn every one of them into a coffee shop and expect them to be successful. I believe we must have some checks and balances in place if we don’t we’re going to be out a shite load of jobs sooner than later this century
Posted on 3/30/18 at 8:08 am to The Cool No 9
quote:Or, maybe businesses should evolve and embrace that dark and scary road of ecommerce that everyone loves to use but hates for them to thrive
I believe we must have some checks and balances in place if we don’t we’re going to be out a shite load of jobs sooner than later this century
Posted on 3/30/18 at 8:49 am to Yak
Isn't it weird that when Trump finds loopholes to get around things like paying taxes he's a genius but when other people do it they're crooks who need to be taken down?
Posted on 3/30/18 at 8:53 am to The Cool No 9
quote:
I believe we must have some checks and balances in place if we don’t we’re going to be out a shite load of jobs sooner than later this century
So obviously the answer is socialism.
Posted on 3/30/18 at 9:28 am to Korkstand
quote:
You're going to have to walk me though this logic, because it sounds like something straight from a textbook that doesn't really relate to the real world.
Obviously the assumption is that taking away handouts would force the unemployed to find work or starve.
Not a problem, I like talking through intermediate theory. Hopefully this thread is still active and not a total abortion, as I'm just checking my post replies.
Yes, that was the framing we're working under here. You said they need 30k "to live" in this hypothetical.
quote:
This makes sense to an extent, though it does not account for those who are (or potentially are) skilled who would leave the minimum wage labor pool in search of higher paying jobs.
I do agree this would happen to a nontrivial portion of workers with the potential. But if they actually need that 30k to survive, the human capital investment they'd need to make would pretty much have to come out of their leisure time- not their earning time in the present. Note that even this response would not serve to decrease labor supply in the long run.
(We'd have some formerly-low productivity workers having moved up into higher-productivity, with some new low-prod workers moving up into the low-wage potential role the old ones were at before. If this were not true, the current MW wouldn't be binding to begin with.)
quote:
But if you continue that trend (of lowering take-home income) via taxation with those whose needs are more than met, then they will work less, right?
Yes, their leisure time would become relative more valuable than before, compared to the income they'd earn working. For those who are ABOVE the true "living wage" threshold, they'd be incented to work less.
But this is only relevant if they are above that point of making enough to survive. And we're supposed to be talking about those who are below what you're calling a "living wage", no?
quote:
So your theory requires that everyone's needs be met, and that requires a certain about of total income.
Yes, and the $15 living wage argument explicitly claims that we are well below this threshold.
quote:
If we reduce the total income by taking away entitlements, then it must be replaced by higher total wages, right?
And it would be incumbent on the earner alone to make that happen. Earlier you suggested three main ways to do this: increased hours they're willing to work, increased willingness to invest in their own training/education to earn more later, or willingness to earn illegally.
I agree with you there to an extent- I agree those would be the three main possible labor supply responses, but it sounded like you were implying one would increase while the others would decrease. I say that what we'd actually see is an increase in all three, leading to an unambiguous increase in labor supply in both the long and short term.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 2:05 pm to CorporateTiger
They gave you an example: Microsoft. It reads word for word what Amazon is doing. Amazon intentionally loses money so they can undercut any competition: exclusive deals, and rigged algorithms for clientele
compared to
quote:
Microsoft was able to use its dominant position
quote:
Microsoft also granted free licenses or rebates to use its software
quote:
although Microsoft did not tie up all ways of competing, its actions did prevent rivals from using the lowest-cost means of taking market share away from Microsoft
compared to
quote:
Toys 'R' Us Sues Amazon.com Over Exclusive Sales Agreement ...
quote:
Amazon makes even temporary warehouse workers sign noncompete contracts
quote:
Amazon bills itself as “Earth’s most customer-centric company.” Yet its algorithm is hiding the best deal from many customers.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 2:25 pm to RobbBobb
It really is not the same. The key in the Microsoft case was that essentially every PC came installed with Windows, through which it pushed its other programs.
You (and I, and everyone) has the option to shop at any website we want. Unless you buy an Amazon device, it is no more difficult to buy from Walmart online than Amazon.
For example,
Microsoft intentionally made it difficult to install competing web browsers. Amazon hasn’t made it harder to go to Walmart.com or Target.com or any of thousands of other websites.
Also given how much better shape Apple is in now, the Microsoft case may very well have turned out differently today.
You (and I, and everyone) has the option to shop at any website we want. Unless you buy an Amazon device, it is no more difficult to buy from Walmart online than Amazon.
For example,
quote:
although Microsoft did not tie up all ways of competing, its actions did prevent rivals from using the lowest-cost means of taking market share away from Microsoft
Microsoft intentionally made it difficult to install competing web browsers. Amazon hasn’t made it harder to go to Walmart.com or Target.com or any of thousands of other websites.
Also given how much better shape Apple is in now, the Microsoft case may very well have turned out differently today.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 5:16 pm to Seldom Seen
I like Amazon but I like the Donald more
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News