Free market, Ceo's suck, etc ......... Split from "A successor already"

[moxie]

as for apple fanboy stupidity.... apple opened a new store in Brisbane Australia a week ago. no new products, no giveaways. it was only a new retail outlet. less than 50 yards away was another store selling the exact same products. BUT the fanboys camped outside the store all night to be the first in!!!! its so sad really to see and hear a bunch of apple tragics cheer and clap because 5 more people are allowed into the store.... brainwashing is all it can be...

I believe that there is some fundamental variable of our personality that determines how strong our need to belong to a particular group is. Let's call it the fan gene. For some people, this seems to be an almost primal need that must be satisified. Depending on age, social environment, gender and so on, this might manifest in different ways - Beliebers, Manchester United fans, Hare Krishna, Church of Apple, or left- or rightwing street groups. Some outlets may be more productive, some less so, but for quite a few of them, it really doesn't matter much what they are devoted to, as long as they're in the group and have a clear concept of who is and isn't in the same group. It is good to scream like a little girl together with your peers, no matter if you scream for Bieber or for the international revolution.

I actually know of people who has gone from being a very active neonazi, to being a very active AntiFascist activist, to joining an agressively prozelyting fundamentalist church. You do the maths. Of course, in each step he very vocally denounces his earlier, misguided ways...

That doesn't mean, of course, that people cannot like Apple products for rational reasons (or so they say - I can't really get it myself) - But for some, I think, the belonging is more important than the actual thing.

 

[Klumpen]

as for apple fanboy stupidity.... apple opened a new store in Brisbane Australia a week ago. no new products, no giveaways. it was only a new retail outlet. less than 50 yards away was another store selling the exact same products. BUT the fanboys camped outside the store all night to be the first in!!!! its so sad really to see and hear a bunch of apple tragics cheer and clap because 5 more people are allowed into the store.... brainwashing is all it can be...

I believe that there is some fundamental variable of our personality that determines how strong our need to belong to a particular group is. Let's call it the fan gene. For some people, this seems to be an almost primal need that must be satisified. Depending on age, social environment, gender and so on, this might manifest in different ways - Beliebers, Manchester United fans, Hare Krishna, Church of Apple, or left- or rightwing street groups. Some outlets may be more productive, some less so, but for quite a few of them, it really doesn't matter much what they are devoted to, as long as they're in the group and have a clear concept of who is and isn't in the same group. It is good to scream like a little girl together with your peers, no matter if you scream for Bieber or for the international revolution.

I actually know of people who has gone from being a very active neonazi, to being a very active AntiFascist activist, to joining an agressively prozelyting fundamentalist church. You do the maths. Of course, in each step he very vocally denounces his earlier, misguided ways...

That doesn't mean, of course, that people cannot like Apple products for rational reasons (or so they say - I can't really get it myself) - But for some, I think, the belonging is more important than the actual thing.

herd instinct, nothing more

 

[FaeMinx]

I always assumed people like Apple products because they don't know any better.

People who are intelligent enough to understand what Apple is all about and still push their products... have sold their souls to the dark side.

 

[SNESFAN]

Every country right now has high unemployment.. minimal low wages or not.

No, many developing countries have close to full employment. The world is not limited to the US & Europe.

Minimum wage is a social program for human rights. If the only jobs to be had know they can feed you a bowl of rice a day to keep you doing your job because of lack of options. That's why it is there. It being liveable or it's effect on the economy is the problem of those governments making that standard. The idea I feel is still correct, looking at it form a human rights perspective.

No, minimum wages were installed when people were already earning more than enough to survive. You are dead wrong about where it comes from. Check your story again.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

I am dead wrong about what exactly? Minimum wage is there to prevent "sweatshop" work environment, which is exactly what I implied about bowl of rice for a day of work. I make no claim america invented it, just explained how we use it. Its effect on economy is our governments problem. Also the level in which it started or where it's at now is neither here nor there.

The concept of why it exists and what it is used for is the point.

Thanks for again ignoring main ideas and selectively choosing what to respond to. Actual price fix with a purpose vs an implied artificial price fix.

 

[ekianjo]

Thanks for again ignoring main ideas and selectively choosing what to respond to.

Then I can answer to your other points. Original human rights written in France had no mention whatsoever about minimal wage. This is very recent concept. See, I can answer to anything you wrote and break it down in small pieces

And what's the point of arguing about minimal wage anyway, since people still complaint that working at Amazon is like working at a sweatshop while they respect minimal wage laws? It never makes sense, people always complain that the minimal wage is too low, ask for the level to be raised, and create further unemployment this way.

It's not a government problem, it's the market that has to deal with wages. For tons of professions you are anyway paid higher than the minimum wage, so this is a proof that employers actually have an incentive to pay you more than nothing. I don't know what else to say to you.

 

[ekianjo]

People who are intelligent enough to understand what Apple is all about and still push their products... have sold their souls to the dark side.

This is the scary part actually. Very clever people supporting Apple, just like if they were blinded by love or something. They are the ones making the most harm in computing.

 

[SNESFAN]

Human right; protection from slavery

Indentured servitude

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

 

[ekianjo]

Human right; protection from slavery

This has NOTHING to do with minimal wage. This has to do with Freedom. This is completely different.

Moreover, the human rights declaration of 1789 did not abolish slavery in France. Try again

 

[SNESFAN]

If no job to be had to feed and house yourself was anything other than a group of employers that only paid in meals, it is exactly the same thing. That's the human rights issue. Its implement to prevent that situation is minimum wage. At least that's a answer to prevent it from happening.

 

[ekianjo]

At least that's a answer to prevent it from happening.

Then you didn't answer my other point. Why do employers pay more than minimal wage for most jobs ? If they are all bastards looking out for profit, they are clearly missing an opportunity here.

 

[Klumpen]

If no job to be had to feed and house yourself was anything other than a group of employers that only paid in meals, it is exactly the same thing. That's the human rights issue. Its implement to prevent that situation is minimum wage. At least that's a answer to prevent it from happening.

As a more economy friendly alternative to "basic income", yes.

At least that's a answer to prevent it from happening.

Then you didn't answer my other point. Why do employers pay more than minimal wage for most jobs ?

We do not have minimal wage here and the fact, that employers are not paying enough for their workers to survive from their wage alone is the reason, why many people want it here.

The comparison to slavery is completely legit, because here you are forced to work for 1€ per hour by the government in some areas where there are no real jobs for you and moving to another area in this situation is not as easy as people think.

 

[SNESFAN]

Lots of unskilled labor jobs don't. In fact most unskilled labor jobs don't in america.

Edit: I saw you tacked on that slavery was not abolished in france in 1700's are you arguing that slavery is ok from a human rights perspective? I don't give a damn what that book says, slavery of a human is wrong anyway you look at it.

 

[ekianjo]

I don't give a damn what that book says, slavery of a human is wrong anyway you look at it.

I'm just saying that EVEN slavery was not abolished when human rights were published, so please stop the ridiculous argument that minimum wage was even mentioned when the first human rights were established. You have to admit when you're wrong.

Lots of unskilled labor jobs don't. In fact most unskilled labor jobs don't in america

You are still not answering why skilled labors is paid more than minimum wage. Employers do not have to. Why do they do it?

 

[SNESFAN]

I'll admit I'm wrong. Compensation for work with bowls of rice is completely legit.


Supply and demand still works. If everyone was a doctor then doctors would make next to nothing.

 

[ekianjo]

Compensation for work with bowels of rice is completely legit.

Where did I say that? Thanks for bringing your arguments to the toilet, but I won't go there if you distort what I say.

 

[SNESFAN]

Like what you've been doing to me for a page and a half? Including how you just misquoted me. What does any of this have anything at all to do with software engineer price fixing? You are distorting what I'm saying so far off the point I was making you make me want to punch my screen. And this isn't the first time you have done this. Don't even make it appear as if I am the one that is misquoting YOU!?!

 

[Granitehead]

You are still not answering why skilled labors is paid more than minimum wage. Employers do not have to. Why do they do it?

Yes, they do have to. Otherwise people would just not work or go to an other employer.
If companies were allowed to agree on wages together (like they did in that linked case) then they would slowly lower the wages until they reach minimum wage. They wouldn't do it too fast so as not to enrage their employees, just a little when there is an "economy crisis" and of course they wouldn't follow inflation. In that linked case, they couldn't lower the wages too much because of several factors: The employees there are educated, probably have some savings and could start businesses of their own relatively easy and there are lots of people earning less. That means that those employees could just leave when they note their wages were artificially lowered respectively not increased.

The "free" market works relatively well, but it also has a prerequisite: Competition.

But competition isn't in the interest of businesses, if they worked together well they could make a lot more profit. That's why the market can't be absolutely free: Either states leave it free, but some businesses take it over. => Market isn't free.

Or states take it over (by making some laws about what's okay and what not), keeping the businesses from doing it (which will have them complaining, obviously). => Market isn't free (but if the states are doing their job well then it's more free than when businesses do it).

 

[ekianjo]

ou are distorting what I'm saying so far off the point I was making you make me want to punch my screen.

Yeah, because your logic fails to explain why tons of wages are actually higher than minimum wage.

Otherwise people would just not work or go to an other employer.

Glad someone has some sense here.

If companies were allowed to agree on wages together (like they did in that linked case) then they would slowly lower the wages until they reach minimum wage

Yet this can never happen, because there are always smaller companies emerging which are very profitable by taking risks and willing to pay their workers more, therefore breaking that hypothetical cycle. It's like people saying that Amazon is going to raise prices once they become a monopoly, they completely fail to understand the market dynamics.

If anything, the wages have been increasing over time and not been reduced.

Don't even make it appear as if I am the one that is misquoting YOU!?!

Yes, I never supported the fact that It's ok to work for a bowl of rice, so OF COURSE you are misquoting me. That's called a strawman.

The "free" market works relatively well, but it also has a prerequisite: Competition.

Totally agree. That's why governments should make sure they make it easy for people to set up new companies and start up new businesses, and not tax newcomers to death.

But competition isn't in the interest of businesses, if they worked together well they could make a lot more profit. That's why the market can't be absolutely free: Either states leave it free, but some businesses take it over. => Market isn't free.

In-between company arrangements are punishable (by the Law), we just need to have the Law applied.

And despite what you say, I'd say competition is in the interest of businesses. The less competition they face, the more companies become complacent (Microsoft) and can get wiped out when something make them irrelevant (Microsoft is not present at all on mobile platforms, or at least nowhere where it should be, for example).

So, competition is actually very healthy and mimics natural selection in nature: you need to keep evolving to keep your edge vs other species. It's actually a very natural model.

 

[Klumpen]

Why do those people that are against minimum wage always think, that all jobs make profits and keep wages high enough by competition?

Never seen a nurse, a personal care assistant, teacher, midwife, firefighter etc...?

In fact, all really important jobs do not create profits at all!

This is the reason why minimum wages are there in some countrys (sadly not mine).

Ah well, who needs all those social valuable jobs that keep society together? How silly of me...

Just do something different if you don't like the low payment, we don't need those, right...

 

[Granitehead]

Fucking editor just lost my post. -.-

Going to be short now.

If companies were allowed to agree on wages together (like they did in that linked case) then they would slowly lower the wages until they reach minimum wage

 Yet this can never happen, because there are always smaller companies emerging which are very profitable by taking risks and willing to pay their workers more, therefore breaking that hypothetical cycle. It's like people saying that Amazon is going to raise prices once they become a monopoly, they completely fail to understand the market dynamics.

If anything, the wages have been increasing over time and not been reduced.

Start new company:Expensive

Can be made even more expensive by existing companies working together.

=>Not always possible.

Median wages' purchasing power lowered, not raised. Bad.

But competition isn't in the interest of businesses, if they worked together well they could make a lot more profit. That's why the market can't be absolutely free: Either states leave it free, but some businesses take it over. => Market isn't free.

 In-between company arrangements are punishable (by the Law), we just need to have the Law applied.

And despite what you say, I'd say competition is in the interest of businesses. The less competition they face, the more companies become complacent (Microsoft) and can get wiped out when something make them irrelevant (Microsoft is not present at all on mobile platforms, or at least nowhere where it should be, for example).

They don't think that will happen. If they managed their companies correctly it wouldn't happen. They /want/ to become complacent. Microsoft has won a lot by eliminating competition in their field. That they missed to jump on the mobile platforms has nothing to do with eliminating their competition in other fields.

So, competition is actually very healthy and mimics natural selection in nature: you need to keep evolving to keep your edge vs other species. It's actually a very natural model.

True. But natural selection is not in the interest of a species unless it's improving the species itself, not the others. If species were businesses and could think they would keep the other species from evolving and only support natural selection within their own ranks.
Edit:

Why do those people that are against minimum wage always think, that all jobs make profits and keep wages high enough by competition?

Never seen a nurse, a personal care assistant, teacher, midwife, firefighter etc...?

In fact, all really important jobs do not create profits at all!

This is the reason why minimum wages are there in some countrys (sadly not mine).

Ah well, who needs all those social valuable jobs that keep society together? How silly of me...

Just do something different if you don't like the low payment, we don't need those, right...

Actually I think, yes, they should switch to an other job. If there was no one who did those jobs we would have a huge problem and their wages would need to raise to get enough personnel.People who try to do good (like those you named) in a capitalist society often do the opposite without wanting to.

Obviously if they aren't working social jobs with low wages for moral reasons but because they have to then it's another piece of cake. That's a problem of the free market (and thus capitalism, those words essentially have the same meaning in my opinion). State should help them to educate themselves so they could do an other work if they wanted to (not to keep the market free but for moral reasons).

But what I personally would like much more is this: An unconditional basic income high enough to live from. Other than that: free market.