Where have America's Defenders Gone?

[CDB]

This assumes 2 things that I can see, right off the bat:

1) That jobs at other companies are available to the worker

Yes it does assume that and rightfully so. There is no real world situation where one employer exists, minus government intervention in the granting of that priviledge. All current supposed examples of monopsony are areas with heavy government intervention or artifacts of the application of perfect competition theory (Block and Barnett, Austrian Critique of NeoClassical Monopsony Theory).

2) That the worker is informed abotu those jobs and what they pay

He doesn't need to be informed because the process doesn't happen in isolation.

That isn't always true. Additionally, in many countries that do not have anti-trust laws, companies get together and set flat wages to maximise all their profits. So they are all paying the same dirt wage that can't even feed a single human.

Companies don't, companies and the government do.

Then they go and hire anyone willing to work there. When these capitalists built their factories they usually build it over previous farmland or some other area that used to provide a natural source of food. So now the peoplee of the region are starving and whereas before they lived without need of money now they have to because the corps took their food away. So their only answer is to go work in the factories and die slowly from starvation.

If they owned the land then the corporations must have paid them what they thought was a fair price for it, at which point one has to ask what the problem is. If they didn't own the land they don't have a right to say how it is used. If they did own the land and didn't want to sell but the government forced the situation upon them, it is not the company that's to blame but the government.

Real world examples of these so called market failures where monopoly or monopsony exist are examples of socialism or mercantilism (or time limited examples of capitalism). I wouldn't defend either one of the first two systems. When the government gets involved and grants a monopoly, you are no longer dealing with capitalism. When the government gets involved and grants a monopsony, you are no longer dealing with capitalism. In both cases you're dealing with extreme government interventions in the market, both of which are in complete contradiction with free market capitalism. It makes no sense at the point to blame capitalism or the market for the distortions caused by the government intervention. That corporations like and take advantage of these interventions to line their own pockets is a reality. However without government enablement of one sort or another they couldn't do such things. Ergo the operative 'bad guy' is the government, not the market or the corporations.

 

[anabolicrhino]

You're missing the point. Everyone is uninformed. Imperfect information is the nature of the market. Those who are best at predicting actual outcomes in practice will become richer and get more money. Were that not the case the market would never advance. Even were all outcomes known such as in the "evenly rotating economy" the capitalist still takes a hit because he is the one who has to save a ton of money/resources to front for others to begin production. That's why he earns a rate of return on the final product and workers take a wage discount so they can get paid now without curtailing their living instead of getting paid at the end of the process and/or cutting back on their own living standard to add resources to the production process. The existence of the capitalist at the begining of a production process infers a higher productivity and level of frugality on his part in the past.

When you add in the entrepreneurial factor, risk and uncertainty, the capitalist/entrepreneur is not only fronting the resources so production can begin at all, he's taking a massive risk because he doesn't know the outcome. Capitalist-Entrepreneurs are the ones taking the most risk despite the uncertainty, therefore they get the most profit. When you look at the histories of the most successful people you don't just see the successes, but massive failures too. The risk has to come with the reward, otherwise there's no point and we'd all still be in caves.

Point taken!... How about a scenario where the worker is a commisioned salesman? The salesman's risk is the same as the owner, in terms of no pay for his efforts until the sale. The worker has deferreed his initial pay with the risk of never being compensated for his efforts, meanwhile the owner risks nothing beyond the operating cost of his buisness, which he would incure with or without the salesman. The salesman's commission is a post profit percentage of a value(the sale) that would not exist without the salesman's efforts. The salesman brings a market to the owner, which would not exist without the salesman. The owners hedges his bet by employing the efforts of multiple salemen, each with the same commision based deal. The probability of a sale for the owner is increased with each additional salesman hired. However, each salesman's risk is increased with each additional salesman hired due to market saturation. This scenario creates a greater probability of reward for the owner, who is taking the lower risk, while decreasing the probability of reward for the salesman who is taking the greater risk. What further increases the risk imbalance is that, the more skilled salesman will have a greater probabiltiy of receiving a reward for his risk. The skill level of the salesman does not effect the risk for the owner, just the other salesman. This system works by creating a "loser", the salesmen who essentially "works for free" when there is no sale. Of course, the salesman ideally, is aware of this "high risk" before he agrees to work for the owner. However in this scenario the higher risk does not assume the higher reward.

 

[Nullifidian]

Companies don't, companies and the government do.

No, man. I'm talking about countries where governments are virtually non-existant. Where the government has no power over the people except what resources they give them or don't.

There are a lot of countries who have governments FAR less powerful than the corporations that set up shop there. These corporations then have their own enforcement in whatever area they've set up in.

 

[CDB]

Point taken!... How about a scenario where the worker is a commisioned salesman? The salesman's risk is the same as the owner, in terms of no pay for his efforts until the sale. The worker has deferreed his initial pay with the risk of never being compensated for his efforts, meanwhile the owner risks nothing beyond the operating cost of his buisness, which he would incure with or without the salesman. The salesman's commission is a post profit percentage of a value(the sale) that would not exist without the salesman's efforts. The salesman brings a market to the owner, which would not exist without the salesman. The owners hedges his bet by employing the efforts of multiple salemen, each with the same commision based deal. The probability of a sale for the owner is increased with each additional salesman hired. However, each salesman's risk is increased with each additional salesman hired due to market saturation. This scenario creates a greater probability of reward for the owner, who is taking the lower risk, while decreasing the probability of reward for the salesman who is taking the greater risk. What further increases the risk imbalance is that, the more skilled salesman will have a greater probabiltiy of receiving a reward for his risk. The skill level of the salesman does not effect the risk for the owner,

Break at this point because that's where you're wrong. Opportunity costs are always in play and those costs are high in sales positions. Take this from somone who has had crappy salemen work for him in the past and pretty much permanently lost a shot at certain clients because of their performance. Opportunity costs.

 

[CDB]

There are a lot of countries who have governments FAR less powerful than the corporations that set up shop there. These corporations then have their own enforcement in whatever area they've set up in.

Government enablement can take the form of direct intervention, indirect intervention, or lack of intervention when it's appropriate, such as in such instances you describe. I assume we both accept the fact that governments will exist, and that it is the proper role of the government in any one area to protect the rights of all its citizens, correct? If so, neglecting the enforcement of the rights of some to enhance the wealth of another is a form of government enablement. It is technically impossible for a government to be far less powerfull than a corporation because no corporation can have the legal monopoly on the use of force. If it does gain that monopoly through some means it is no longer a business, it is the government. Corporations like private citizens can try to use force to compell one another, but it is and should be illegal to do so, and the only way they get away with it is if the government intervenes directly, passing special 'laws' to make such action 'legal,' or by turning blind eye to violations that exist.

I would not say that individuals in government are not vulnerable to selling out some of their citizens to line their own pockets. That much is a given and is blatantly obvious. Legislators will pass laws giving some people special privileges, some cops are willing to turn a blind eye to some violence if they're adequately bribed, judges are also beholden to special interests for various reasons. And people in all three branches of the US government may be ideologically swayed one way or another to favor one group of citizens over another. However it is still the government which is the operative 'bad guy.' Corporations can only beg for favoritism, offer bribes as they will in whatever forms, lobby for their interests, etc. It's still only the government who can grant those favors. It's still only the government who is in charge of the army and the police and the courts and the legislature. No corporation can pick your pocket or do much of anything to you against your will without government help, anymore than any private citizen can.

What I'm getting at is that it's not that I don't share your dissatisfaction, or even Mullet's, with a lot of how our current system is set up, nationally and globally. I simply think you have chosen the wrong place for blame to fall.

 

[Nullifidian]

Government enablement can take the form of direct intervention, indirect intervention, or lack of intervention when it's appropriate, such as in such instances you describe. I assume we both accept the fact that governments will exist, and that it is the proper role of the government in any one area to protect the rights of all its citizens, correct? If so, neglecting the enforcement of the rights of some to enhance the wealth of another is a form of government enablement. It is technically impossible for a government to be far less powerfull than a corporation because no corporation can have the legal monopoly on the use of force. If it does gain that monopoly through some means it is no longer a business, it is the government. Corporations like private citizens can try to use force to compell one another, but it is and should be illegal to do so, and the only way they get away with it is if the government intervenes directly, passing special 'laws' to make such action 'legal,' or by turning blind eye to violations that exist.

I would not say that individuals in government are not vulnerable to selling out some of their citizens to line their own pockets. That much is a given and is blatantly obvious. Legislators will pass laws giving some people special privileges, some cops are willing to turn a blind eye to some violence if they're adequately bribed, judges are also beholden to special interests for various reasons. And people in all three branches of the US government may be ideologically swayed one way or another to favor one group of citizens over another. However it is still the government which is the operative 'bad guy.' Corporations can only beg for favoritism, offer bribes as they will in whatever forms, lobby for their interests, etc. It's still only the government who can grant those favors. It's still only the government who is in charge of the army and the police and the courts and the legislature. No corporation can pick your pocket or do much of anything to you against your will without government help, anymore than any private citizen can.

What I'm getting at is that it's not that I don't share your dissatisfaction, or even Mullet's, with a lot of how our current system is set up, nationally and globally. I simply think you have chosen the wrong place for blame to fall.

CDB, legality is completely irrelevant in a land where might makes right and a large corporation has more might than that county's government.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I am not sure what constitutes those professions in the United States, but following an education in those studies here in Canada means dissecting pieces of **** like the 'Bell Curve' for what they are, not swallowing them wholeheartedly.


Man, I am sorry for writing so much about this or seeming like a **** I just cannot believe I am really in contact with people who give this kind of garbage real thought. These concepts are so laughable I am just flabbergasted.

Oh boy, you just wasted about 3000000 words.

You need to read what I wrote, word for word. Its clear as day. I said the guy is a hypocrite because he starts out trashing the idea of IQ differences among races and then proclaims the New Guinean's more intelligent than us european westerners. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?

The dude starts out his book by bashing "The Bell Curve" and any idea that genetic IQ differences amongs races exist, and then follows up shortly after with a statement claiming that the average Papua New Guinean tribal person is more intelligent than the average Western European (specifically European decendants). :rofl:

I haven't read "The Bell Curve" and haven't endorsed it.

Now, about one of the issues discussed in the bell curve. I haven't read it, so I can't say anything about the book in particular, but, the part of the book that you find so offensive, and the part you thought that I was endorsing (while I obviously wasn't), I can't say I agree or disagree.

Having a pretty good background in genetics and biology and the kinds of genetic differences that can develop between isolated populations over time, I cannot say that differences between IQ and race don't exist. However, I cannot say they do either. But, overall, it doesn't even matter because it is definite that if they even do exist they do not exist to the degree that would be significant enough to produce any considerable differences in potential. So, its a moot point and I really don't care much and is an issue that shouldn't be investigated, and hasn't been to any great extent, for obvious reasons--people are hysterical.


Oh, and BTW, I do'nt know which post you're talking about where you said I was intentionally editing posts to make myself seem as if I had a witty edge on you? I can tell you, if I edited something, that wasn't the reason for it. It would have been because I thought they were a poor choice of words or because I found something to be factually innacurate. I don't have small-peepee issue to the degree that I need to be an uber-leet-forum-master-debater

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Oh boy, you just wasted about 3000000 words.

You need to read what I wrote, word for word. Its clear as day. I said the guy is a hypocrite because he starts out trashing the idea of IQ differences among races and then proclaims the New Guinean's more intelligent than us european westerners. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?


I haven't read "The Bell Curve" and haven't endorsed it.

Now, about one of the issues discussed in the bell curve. I haven't read it, so I can't say anything about the book in particular, but, the part of the book that you find so offensive, and the part you thought that I was endorsing (while I obviously wasn't), I can't say I agree or disagree.

Having a pretty good background in genetics and biology and the kinds of genetic differences that can develop between isolated populations over time, I cannot say that differences between IQ and race don't exist. However, I cannot say they do either. But, overall, it doesn't even matter because it is definite that if they even do exist they do not exist to the degree that would be significant enough to produce any considerable differences in potential. So, its a moot point and I really don't care much and is an issue that shouldn't be investigated, and hasn't been to any great extent, for obvious reasons--people are hysterical.


Oh, and BTW, I do'nt know which post you're talking about where you said I was intentionally editing posts to make myself seem as if I had a witty edge on you? I can tell you, if I edited something, that wasn't the reason for it. It would have been because I thought they were a poor choice of words or because I found something to be factually innacurate. I don't have small-peepee issue to the degree that I need to be an uber-leet-forum-master-debater

Well I suppose based on your previous statements and beliefs I made an ASSumption which was apparently incorrect.

I will say one thing though, that it is incredibly easy to prove there are no racial differences in IQ. In order to even believe that one could empirically seek to prove even the most minute difference one must presuppose that each of those terms can be defined completely independently of social and cultural constructions, which would be the basis for any genetic condition. As I said before even the term 'race' haphazzardly lumps biological, cultural, and social terms with no medical backing whatsoever. How many races exist? 3, 30, 3000? Is there an American race? What about a Canadian one? Any perception of both ones own 'race' and any alternate 'races' are nothing more than social constructions. The earth's population is so interbred that any distinction among 'races' is made upon superficial physical characteristics and that distinction in and of itself contradicts any genetic basis.

Conversely, the same logic applies for intelligence. The only real quantifiable measure of intelligence, IMO, would be the capacity to do certain tasks (communication, logic, spacial recognition, etc.,) completely independent of application. B/c the application of our shared capacity is once again completely dependent on cultural and social factors, which once again are mutually exclusive from any genetic conditions.

Anyway, no "small peepee" issues here bro. Projecting maybe?

 

[anabolicrhino]

Break at this point because that's where you're wrong. Opportunity costs are always in play and those costs are high in sales positions. Take this from somone who has had crappy salemen work for him in the past and pretty much permanently lost a shot at certain clients because of their performance. Opportunity costs.

OPPORTUNIY(risk) equals REWARD( knowledge, profit, more opportunity)

I was not trying to refute that fact. My point was that capitalism does not systematically reward the greatest risk taker with the greatest reward. However the system can punish the person who makes the greater mistakes. The "crappiness" of the salesman is relative to the specific skill of selling.(with all due respect) Ultimately, the "decision" to hire the crappy salesman is the greater mistake, so it brings the greater punishment(loss of opportunituy)

 

[CDB]

CDB, legality is completely irrelevant in a land where might makes right and a large corporation has more might than that county's government.

There is no land where might does not make right, especially if you conflate right with legal, which for the purposes of this discussion we can. Our government gets its authority from the threat of force just like every other government. That they are not as blatant about it as most doesn't change that basic fact. Actively resist the enforcement of even the most minor law and you will be shot eventually as your resistance escalates.

 

[CDB]

OPPORTUNIY(risk) equals REWARD( knowledge, profit, more opportunity)

I was not trying to refute that fact. My point was that capitalism does not systematically reward the greatest risk taker with the greatest reward.

It makes no claim to do so. 'Rewards' go to those who are right about their risks more often than not in ways that matter to others.

However the system can punish the person who makes the greater mistakes. The "crappiness" of the salesman is relative to the specific skill of selling.(with all due respect) Ultimately, the "decision" to hire the crappy salesman is the greater mistake, so it brings the greater punishment(loss of opportunituy)

And who has made the greater loss there, the manager or the salesman? They've both lost time, they've both lost opportunities. The 'profits' the manager loses through opportunity costs are by your own admission bigger than those lost by the salesman; he stands to earn more, therefore his opportunity costs are greater. I don't see the negative of the situation. Those who try and predict the most efficient way to use resources and are right get rewarded at all levels, those who fail get punished at all levels. Seems rational and equitable to me, though the latter judgement is unnecessary in my view.

Edit: With regard to market effects on employees and supposed monopsony, I can tell you from direct experience after years in human resources, recruiting, sourcing, hiring and firing people that companies who low-ball people rarely get the hires they want. I have a couple of clients who routinely try this because they think they're hot **** and people should be happy to work for them. The Job Orders go unfilled until their central HR gives up and hands them off directly to local managers whose first action is usually to raise the cap on the salary, at which point the position is filled within a couple weeks. And this happens with high tech and low tech JOs in all markets. When they don't raise the cap they lower the job's expectations and experience/knowledge requirements. I can understand some cynicism but I've seen this process play out in various markets under various economic conditions for all types of employers and employees and it's always the same: you low-ball people, they go elsewhere. The companies who routinely try and low-ball people also have higher employee turnover in my experience, an added cost for not paying someone what they're worth.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Well I suppose based on your previous statements and beliefs I made an ASSumption which was apparently incorrect.

I will say one thing though, that it is incredibly easy to prove there are no racial differences in IQ.

Yeah, I agree it is. But, the people who interpret those results won't always agree. If differences were observed, they'd easily be brushed aside due to "socioeconomic differences" and then when those factors were removed it would be "cultural differences" then when those factors were removed it would be "poor science" and repeat.

In order to even believe that one could empirically seek to prove even the most minute difference one must presuppose that each of those terms can be defined completely independently of social and cultural constructions, which would be the basis for any genetic condition. As I said before even the term 'race' haphazzardly lumps biological, cultural, and social terms with no medical backing whatsoever.

Race isn't really used with any sincerity anymore by scientists, they prefer the term clade. So, you're right in that regard. In fact, taxonomy altogether is ridiculous, and hardly a "science". It is completely subjective. By the same logic behind the classification of certain sub-species of animals, I could make a damn good case that humans (a few hundred years back) could have been classified as different sub-species of homo sapien (wouldn't apply anymore). Now, this also means absolutely ZERO because I could also use that argument and say because humans are classified in this way, that species of animal should be classified different, etc. Then I could also say I disagree entirely with the classifications, much like is going on right now with birds. Traditionally avians and reptiles are separate classes, however, one (of the many, and the most prominent of the) debates raging right now among taxonomists is whether or not avians and reptiles should be separated into different classes. Hell, one of the major "requirements" for a species to be a different species is their ability to breed with each other. Now, by "ability" I don't mean can they have offspring? I mean, can they reproduce or are they separated by physiological, physical, or geographic obstructions that would prevent that? You could have two IDENTICAL animals separated by an ocean, capable of producing offspring, but incapable of doing so naturally and theyll be considered different species simply because of the ocean barrier.

How many races exist? 3, 30, 3000?

A few hundred years ago? Well, quite a few. Soon? no real discernable races will be prevalent in most of the free world.

Is there an American race? What about a Canadian one? Any perception of both ones own 'race' and any alternate 'races' are nothing more than social constructions. The earth's population is so interbred that any distinction among 'races' is made upon superficial physical characteristics and that distinction in and of itself contradicts any genetic basis.

We're outbred, not interbred Hicks are interbred. lol. If you continue to interbreed you'll have the same genes being recycled and all kinds of "funny" things happen. Just wanted to clarify to the wordsmith.

Conversely, the same logic applies for intelligence. The only real quantifiable measure of intelligence, IMO, would be the capacity to do certain tasks (communication, logic, spacial recognition, etc.,) completely independent of application.

Intelligence differences among races (or clades) will never be investigated in the future, and for good reason. The determining factors of what is quantifiable and what is not will differ from person to person, and change from agenda to agenda. Scientists want to be excluded from politics often, and you'll never get a good scientist looking into this subject.

Anyway, no "small peepee" issues here bro. Projecting maybe?

Man, you're too much I wasn't referencing you, bud. I was trying to ease over the tension.

Anyway, I'm done here. I never meant for this to take off in that direction. I'll be careful where I use the word "Bell Curve" in public (now I need to read the book, hahaa...). This isn't one of those issues worth even discussing the "possibilities" because there is so much emotion and ideology involved that, independent of (hypothetically) the results of incredibly good science and the best arguments, there is no chance you can get everyone to agree, or even disagree politely.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Anyway, I'm done here. I never meant for this to take off in that direction. I'll be careful where I use the word "Bell Curve" in public (now I need to read the book, hahaa...). This isn't one of those issues worth even discussing the "possibilities" because there is so much emotion and ideology involved that, independent of (hypothetically) the results of incredibly good science and the best arguments, there is no chance you can get everyone to agree, or even disagree politely.

Agreed with most of it, so lets drop it and eat cake

 

[Mulletsoldier]

And yeah, outbred..lol..I shouldn't type at 3am anymore

 

[anabolicrhino]

Anyone familiar with the "Taco Bell" curve?

It plots on a standard x/y axix how many times the "refried" beans are actually re-fried. truely enlightening.

Inbreeding is fine for dogs and horses(400?) with their high counts of chromosones, but not so much for humans(23) you can only shuffle the deck so many times.