-->
@3RU7AL
Then, what's the point? I'm speaking of perfectly legal profit by rental of property.
Universal Basic Income
Posts
Total:
314
-->
@fauxlaw
And as a potential investor in that corporation, you can share in that profiting. That is, you can if you consider that in addition to just working for money, you can put your money to work for you. By that tactic, you want that corporation to be more profitable. Of course, that means you may not be able to buy a boat, or an RV, but you will increase your wealth. Such purchases do not do that for you; these products are not investments; they're drains. Invest in yourself. Buy a house; that is an investment. then buy another one, and rent it out. That other stuff can be rented, and you're free of the upkeep and maintenance costs. When was the last time you sold a vehicle at a profit? In spite of my net worth, I drive a 20 year-old truck because it just continues to run. I don't need a new car every three years. My truck has more than paid for itself, and, in the meantime, I've been able to devote more money to investment in me. It's too easy and so many people stumble over the idea that working for money is enough. Really?
Which part of this is specifically about property rental fees?
-->
@fauxlaw
By that tactic, you want that corporation to be more profitable
I agree. IF your goal is profits THEN mechanisms by which to profit are what you want.
Profits are not the explicit goal which is just providing those basic necessities (and you and I have at least found enough space for shelters and enough food to feed everyone that NO ONE is using) goal when we discuss providing shelter and food and medicine for everyone neither is it the implicit goal which is overall human welfare.
If you would like we can talk about ways of securing profits INSTEAD of about any given idea concerning providing basic necessities to basically everyone we can but you should probably start your own thread for that.
-->
@3RU7AL
Buy a house; that is an investment. then buy another one, and rent it out.
-->
@fauxlaw
Buy a house; shelter is a necessity. then build another one, and sell it for a profit.
Renting a house is "seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth".
Trading stock is "seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth."
Banking is "seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth."
-->
@fauxlaw
I think it should be obvious how automation reduces cost of living but if it isn't then let me know and I will explain.Please explain
Supermarket A spends $5k to get a truck load of fruit to market then has to sell those fruits at a price high enough to make a profit.
Supermarket B next door also has to sell their fruislts at a high enough price to make a profit but they spend only $4k to get the same truck load of fresh fruit to market because their fleet of trucks is capable of driving themselves so they don't pay any drivers wages.
Who is selling their fruit for cheaper?
-->
@3RU7AL
Buy a house; shelter is a necessity. then build another one, and sell it for a profit.
Why does not everyone buy homes then?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Buy a house; shelter is a necessity. then build another one, and sell it for a profit.Why does not everyone buy homes then?
The theory is that if all rental properties were rent-to-own (fractional ownership) then more people would own their homes.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Which ever market thinks their retail price is closest to the bearable market. That may not be the $4k wholesale guy. And maybe the fruit is a loss-leader to acquire other sales. Nor have you taken into account the offsetting power of other countervailing factors.
-->
@fauxlaw
Like I said the selling price, quality, etc. in the example is the same for both A and B. The difference in price was due to the transportation method.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, you did not say A & B, other than cost of the load of fruit, is the same, and you completely ignore factors as I raised which do make a difference and are always possible factors. Your only similarity was the need for both A & B to sell at a profit [not necessarily the same profit]. But, loss leaders, for example, do sometimes help to gain that profit, as does accounting for countervailing factors, even if the similar product itself is priced either the same or differently. You offered a two-dimensional solution. Mine has three and four.
-->
@fauxlaw
Seems like he was trying to present an "all things being equal" hypothetical and you are trying to answer that hypothetical by saying "oh yeah? Well things aren't all equal smart pants!" Wich is unnecessary as most people who present "all things being equal" hypotheticals understand that all things are not equal and also counterproductive since the whole point of such hypotheticals is to evaluate one particular factor (like self driving cars effects on the fruit market) in isolation.
-->
@fauxlaw
No, you did not say A & B, other than cost of the load of fruit, is the same, and you completely ignore factors as I raised which do make a difference and are always possible factors. Your only similarity was the need for both A & B to sell at a profit [not necessarily the same profit]. But, loss leaders, for example, do sometimes help to gain that profit, as does accounting for countervailing factors, even if the similar product itself is priced either the same or differently. You offered a two-dimensional solution. Mine has three and four.
YES. IN THE SHORT TERM THE LOWEST PRICED FOOD WILL WIN.
UP TO THE POINT WHERE NOBODY CAN AFFORD TO BUY FOOD BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY JOBS.
-->
@fauxlaw
GOOD FOR CONSUMERS ≠ GOOD FOR WORKERS.
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
@Discipulus_Didicit
Patience, my friends. Rather than respond here, I am making the matter the subject of a debate, in which the whole argument in isolation will be featured. Therein is an issue: "in isolation." It is a flawed factor that figures greatly in why I disagree with all of you.
-->
@fauxlaw
No, you did not say A & B, other than cost of the load of fruit, is the same
Okay, then there was a misunderstanding. Now that you know this is the case reread post 186 and respond to it again.
I am trying to demonstrate to you why automation would change prices, so yes in my example the automation is the only difference.
-->
@fauxlaw
Patience, my friends. Rather than respond here, I am making the matter the subject of a debate,
Okay I didn't see this before making my last post. What is the debate resolution?
-->
@3RU7AL
GOOD FOR CONSUMERS ≠ GOOD FOR WORKERS.
You realize that consumers are workers in our society right?
You still have not responded to my proposal to cut hours in other fields to avoid a cut in wages and avoid a cut in jobs. What do you say to that?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
my response is in my #195
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You'll see it when you see the debate. Do I look like I'm wearing a clown suit?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I think I will issue it tomorrow
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
my proposal to cut hours in other fields to avoid a cut in wages and avoid a cut in jobs. What do you say to that?
What jobs?
Sure, we could cut hours and hire more part-timers, but that will only drive wages even lower (and cut benefits).
This might "work" for another 3, 4, or 5 years, but 10 years down the road?
What jobs?
(IFF) your food is planted, watered and harvested and sorted and delivered and stocked and priced by GPT3, and all your televisions and computers are designed, manufactured, delivered and maintained by GPT3, and all your "white collar" banking and stock trading is much more efficiently and less corruptly managed by GPT3 (THEN) what the heck do you think the humans will be doing?
What jobs?
-->
@fauxlaw
Therein is an issue: "in isolation."
I'm not saying you are wrong in that there are other factors that go into determining the price of products I'm saying I think you missed the point of the hypothetical.
-->
@3RU7AL
drive wages even lower
For there to be a decrease in the value of labor there would need to be an increase in labor supply or a decrease in labor demand.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
decrease in labor demand.
Like say that caused by automation?
-->
@secularmerlin
Like say that caused by automation?
No, I was specifically talking about fields not immediately effected by automation. I was saying that as automation in some labor fields increased workers could move to non-automated fields. Workers in said fields could afford to take cuts in their hours to make room for incoming workers from more automated fields (thus keeping labor hours supplied in those fields relatively stable even with an increased number of workers) because automation in the general market would vastly decrease cost of living by the time there is enough of it to impact the labor market.
Because of the decreased cost of living it provides the end result of automation is less hours in a work week, not less positions on the market.
-->
@secularmerlin
Basically 3RU7AL made a big fuss over self-driving vehicles causing 3.5 million people to lose jobs, but that is only a bit over 2% of the labor market. If everyone in all other fields in the labor market took a 5% cut in their hours scheduled they could make room for those 3.5 million people to move to those fields without causing a huge labor surplus thus keeping wages per hour similar to before. Wages per year would decrease by that 5%, which would be compensated for by the fact that cost of living would decrease dramatically in this example because decrease in transportation costs would have an effect on the price of virtually everything (fauxlaw doesn't seem to understand why a transportation company would decrease it's prices after having such a huge reduction in it's overhead costs but 3RU7AL is perfectly willing to admit cost of living would decrease, he just doesn't understand the rest of what I am saying well enough to realize why this cost of living decrease would not necessarily be accompanied by a decrease in wages per hour).
Zut alors! My automation debate is cut off at the knees by Wylted's ban [Bringerofrain is an alt of Wylted]. The debate will time out by forfeit before David's ban of Wylt/Bringer times out. @#$!@#%!#$T@~
I will resurrect the debate if anyone is interested.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Basically 3RU7AL made a big fuss over self-driving vehicles causing 3.5 million people to lose jobs, but that is only a bit over 2% of the labor market. If everyone in all other fields in the labor market took a 5% cut in their hours scheduled they could make room for those 3.5 million people to move to those fields without causing a huge labor surplus thus keeping wages per hour similar to before. Wages per year would decrease by that 5%, which would be compensated for by the fact that cost of living would decrease dramatically in this example because decrease in transportation costs would have an effect on the price of virtually everything (fauxlaw doesn't seem to understand why a transportation company would decrease it's prices after having such a huge reduction in it's overhead costs but 3RU7AL is perfectly willing to admit cost of living would decrease, he just doesn't understand the rest of what I am saying well enough to realize why this cost of living decrease would not necessarily be accompanied by a decrease in wages per hour).
Ok, this makes a lot of sense.
The only point you're missing is that self-driving-vehicles is just ONE EXAMPLE of the massive shift in automation.
-->
@secularmerlin
decrease in labor demand.Like say that caused by automation?
100% THIS.