Prevailing and average wages?

[Guest Manny]

The 15% is applied to the average wage. There is no bottom for any given job, other than minimum wage. So when this becomes the "new" average wage... you do the math, and see what happens.

[eyeball]

The manufacturers also screamed their heads off. So did the high tech people who lost their jobs in droves in the 2000s and had their wages pushed down.

We didn't lose the same sort of opportunities. The ecosystems, fish and forests and so on that made our local economy tick are all still here. It's the management of these things that is off limits, always has been and seemingly always will be.

You can't compare what we lost to what the people you cite lost without also comparing the response in each case. Where we were asking for more control over our local ecosystems your's would have been asking for more control over the global economy. Why either of us would want this should be obvious enough on the face of things, to ensure the economic benefits are more fairly distributed throughout our communities/societies/economies. Our response makes sense but how would your's compare?

You know how it would compare, you'd be poo'ed on and compared to Marx and Pol Pot et al for having the temerity to think economic benefits should be distributed fairly throughout your communities/societies/economies. Interestingly we were compared to commies too.

Like canaries in a coal mine or a coal mine in a canary cage...as it is above so it is below.

To use another analogy would the butterfly wing's flap of change at our local level have blown up a hurricane of change at the national? I think so. I think what we were proposing represented a nightmare to the powers that be, hence the comparisons to Marx etc.

Elections are fought over a handful of television-based wedge issues that come up during the media campaigns.

Yes, it's like watching civilization slip on a banana peel. Hilarious until the fall turns it into a paraplegic.

Edited April 30, 2012 by eyeball

[eyeball]

What's really hilarious is imagining that Canadians actually control their economic fate. Here's a particularly perverse juxtaposition to the idea that Canadians, especially in BC's fishing communities, are nothing but whiners who are not willing to work.

There's a small fish hatchery down the road from where I live that produced nearly 2 million fish shortly after it was constructed. When these fish returned they kept a couple hundred fishermen working for nearly a month and a couple of fish plants working around the clock to process the catch.

This was it's first pilot project. It was so successful that communities up and down the coast started drawing up proposals for similar hatcheries. Ottawa ordered DFO to shut it down and no more were built.

Is it the irony or the poo that stands out most in this related thread?

There are winners and losers as there have always been. There are just more winners now than before. Cry me a river because fishermen are too stupid to replenish their stocks and computers slashed paper usage.

Do fish and computer paper have anything in common Michael?

Edited April 30, 2012 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

We didn't lose the same sort of opportunities. The ecosystems, fish and forests and so on that made our local economy tick are all still here. It's the management of these things that is off limits, always has been and seemingly always will be.

You can't compare what we lost to what the people you cite lost without also comparing the response in each case. Where we were asking for more control over our local ecosystems your's would have been asking for more control over the global economy.

They were asking for more control of the LOCAL economy.

Why either of us would want this should be obvious enough on the face of things, to ensure the economic benefits are more fairly distributed throughout our communities/societies/economies. Our response makes sense but how would your's compare?

If you mean ours vs yours as West vs East or fishing community vs manufacturing community, then the response was the same, and the larger population's response too.

Yes, it's like watching civilization slip on a banana peel. Hilarious until the fall turns it into a paraplegic.

You know this, and I know this. Now the oilpatch will be awakened to the fact that at the flick of a pen their wages can be reduced by 15%. It's coming for everybody. My adjustment came early, I was still in my 30s. My brother-in-law has just found out that his branch plant head office is on the decline, and he'll have to find something new approaching age 50.

Somebody out there is getting rich, though.

[eyeball]

They were asking for more control of the LOCAL economy.

Sure but mostly by extension. In any case why should that be such a dangerous thing, especially now in the face of so much evidence that our dispossession has indeed resulted in such a local economic downturn?

If you mean ours vs yours as West vs East or fishing community vs manufacturing community, then the response was the same, and the larger population's response too.

The response was 'forget it'. You're saying the larger population would agree it should forget ever having any control over it's economic fate too? Why on Earth would it do that?

You know this, and I know this. Now the oilpatch will be awakened to the fact that at the flick of a pen their wages can be reduced by 15%.

If what you just implied about the way larger populations of Canadians are responding is true, I doubt anyone will awaken for very long.

It's coming for everybody. My adjustment came early, I was still in my 30s. My brother-in-law has just found out that his branch plant head office is on the decline, and he'll have to find something new approaching age 50.

Somebody out there is getting rich, though.

Only because everyone's asleep.

[dre]

Sure but mostly by extension. In any case why should that be such a dangerous thing, especially now in the face of so much evidence that our dispossession has indeed resulted in such a local economic downturn?

The response was 'forget it'. You're saying the larger population would agree it should forget ever having any control over it's economic fate too? Why on Earth would it do that?

If what you just implied about the way larger populations of Canadians are responding is true, I doubt anyone will awaken for very long.

Only because everyone's asleep.

Well its not that we are really asleep, its that the political class has gotten really good at this. It took a long time but the puzzle of the western social democracy has finally been solved. A handfull of people can make whatever decisions they see fit, and the illusion of democracy keeps people from shutting them down.

Its really quite a stunning achievement, and philosophers have been trying to figure this out for thousands of years.

[Guest Manny]

Well its not that we are really asleep, its that the political class has gotten really good at this. It took a long time but the puzzle of the western social democracy has finally been solved. A handfull of people can make whatever decisions they see fit, and the illusion of democracy keeps people from shutting them down.

Its really quite a stunning achievement, and philosophers have been trying to figure this out for thousands of years.

Not too stunning, really. Karl Marx wrote about these problems in "The Communist Manifesto".

That the bourgosie would always find a way back in to control the system, and therefore he advocated continual revolution.

But on the balance of things, on the whole, the bourgosie never really were out of power. It's all just an illusion, one that is more apparent now than ever before, for a variety of reasons.

[eyeball]

Well its not that we are really asleep, its that the political class has gotten really good at this. It took a long time but the puzzle of the western social democracy has finally been solved. A handfull of people can make whatever decisions they see fit, and the illusion of democracy keeps people from shutting them down.

Its really quite a stunning achievement, and philosophers have been trying to figure this out for thousands of years.

The philosophers should have taken a cue from the priests who figured out how to check the abuse of power the handful wield long ago. They did this ironically enough by conjuring up the illusion of an all seeing judgmental deity that would punish rulers for their wickedness by casting them into hell when they died.

Of course the handful figured out the priest's scam and simply made them a better offer.

As for us, I'm still hopeful that the handful's fear of being seen and judged is the way to go which is why I think God gave us the Internet and all the means we'll ever need to souveil and judge it ourselves in realtime.

[Michael Hardner]

Well its not that we are really asleep, its that the political class has gotten really good at this. It took a long time but the puzzle of the western social democracy has finally been solved. A handfull of people can make whatever decisions they see fit, and the illusion of democracy keeps people from shutting them down.

Incorrect. Western Democracy has been quite content to put it to the rich people at various times. You're getting warm though. Try to find out why workers are so concerned with the plight of owners and investors first, then go from there.

But on the balance of things, on the whole, the bourgosie never really were out of power. It's all just an illusion, one that is more apparent now than ever before, for a variety of reasons.

When and where have they ever been out of power in a healthy society ?

The philosophers should have taken a cue from the priests who figured out how to check the abuse of power the handful wield long ago. They did this ironically enough by conjuring up the illusion of an all seeing judgmental deity that would punish rulers for their wickedness by casting them into hell when they died.

The priests were just trying to find their own place in the system, just like you and me.

[dre]

Incorrect. Western Democracy has been quite content to put it to the rich people at various times. You're getting warm though. Try to find out why workers are so concerned with the plight of owners and investors first, then go from there.

When and where have they ever been out of power in a healthy society ?

The priests were just trying to find their own place in the system, just like you and me.

When and where have they ever been out of power in a healthy society ?

Its a matter of degree. The more they have been out of power the more society has been healthy. Up until the last 20 or 30 years the government was a fairly strong advocate for the public interest, and that included taking on economic and industrial players. Some examples would be anti trust laws, the breaking up the railroad tycoons and robber barons, and you could even go back to the removal of the veto held by the house of british lords.

Today none of these things would happen. The breakup of the aristocracy, robber barons, and railroad tycoons through taxation would be immediately branded socialism/communism, or whatever. These decisions, which were extremely important to our way of life today and the existance of the western middle class would not be possible today because the government is NOT an aggresive advocate for the public interest any more.

Like I said in my previous post, these things happened over time. Little corruption here, little legalized bribery and quid pro guo here... These things snowballed and the current era of pay for play politics, billions spent on lobbying legislators behind closed doors, etc.

Our system was pretty good! It took a long time, and a gigantic ammount of money to successfully subvert it. But its been gamed now, and it will be very hard to fix it. Great societies have to reinvent themselves from time to time, and I think we are approaching such a time.

[Michael Hardner]

Its a matter of degree. The more they have been out of power the more society has been healthy. Up until the last 20 or 30 years the government was a fairly strong advocate for the public interest, and that included taking on economic and industrial players. Some examples would be anti trust laws, the breaking up the railroad tycoons and robber barons, and you could even go back to the removal of the veto held by the house of british lords.

My question again:

When and where have they ever been out of power in a healthy society ?

Today none of these things would happen. The breakup of the aristocracy, robber barons, and railroad tycoons through taxation would be immediately branded socialism/communism, or whatever. These decisions, which were extremely important to our way of life today and the existance of the western middle class would not be possible today because the government is NOT an aggresive advocate for the public interest any more.

Like I said in my previous post, these things happened over time. Little corruption here, little legalized bribery and quid pro guo here... These things snowballed and the current era of pay for play politics, billions spent on lobbying legislators behind closed doors, etc.

Our system was pretty good! It took a long time, and a gigantic ammount of money to successfully subvert it. But its been gamed now, and it will be very hard to fix it. Great societies have to reinvent themselves from time to time, and I think we are approaching such a time.

These are observations. It's easy to observe and report, but why is this happening in your opinion ?

Again: Try to find out why workers are so concerned with the plight of owners and investors first, then go from there.

I have been thinking of the money problem some more, and I have concluded that a new type of money is about to launch someday soon that will supplant the old money in the same way that money supplanted barter.

[dre]

My question again:

When and where have they ever been out of power in a healthy society ?

These are observations. It's easy to observe and report, but why is this happening in your opinion ?

Again: Try to find out why workers are so concerned with the plight of owners and investors first, then go from there.

I have been thinking of the money problem some more, and I have concluded that a new type of money is about to launch someday soon that will supplant the old money in the same way that money supplanted barter.

When and where have they ever been out of power in a healthy society ?

And I answered that. Its a matter of degree. Its not about them having no power at all, its about how zealously the government represents the public interest, which is the check on industrial power.

Its not a black and white thing, where either public or private interests are completely supreme, although if the government wants to they can pretty much do whatever they want.

These are observations. It's easy to observe and report, but why is this happening in your opinion ?

We slid down a slippery slope an inch at a time. Businesses grew larger and more influential, and more and more money entered into the political process. Private interests over time figured out to be very effective advocates for their interests... they spent billions of dollars on the project, hired armies of full time lobbiests, etc etc. There was also the "new new deal" in 1971 that I go on and on about like a broken record

They did a good job on their own behalf and they shifted the balance of power a fair bit.

Try to find out why workers are so concerned with the plight of owners and investors first, then go from there.

Workers are only concerned about that when there isnt much upward mobility, or when they see the way capital is allocated dramatically changing. When their wages were increasing along with their productivity they never cared that a few people were getting rich. They idolized them!.

Theyre mad because the deal fundamentally changed.

I have been thinking of the money problem some more, and I have concluded that a new type of money is about to launch someday soon that will supplant the old money in the same way that money supplanted barter.

I think we will just own shares in each other most likely. If you need credit you just issue your own bonds and auction them off on the NCB website. Youll make the same argument to the public as you currently do to the bank, and if people judge your endevour to be worthy, and you are a good credit risk then they will buy your shares, or take them as trade for the things you need for your endevour.

[Michael Hardner]

We slid down a slippery slope an inch at a time. Businesses grew larger and more influential, and more and more money entered into the political process. Private interests over time figured out to be very effective advocates for their interests... they spent billions of dollars on the project, hired armies of full time lobbiests, etc etc. There was also the "new new deal" in 1971 that I go on and on about like a broken record

They did a good job on their own behalf and they shifted the balance of power a fair bit.

Close but no cigar. There was always money, influence, and vote buying... what made it worse ? IMO it was the value of the vote coming down to the point where influence could be bought en masse.

Theyre mad because the deal fundamentally changed.

Why did they care so much about taxes coming down ? About corporations getting more power ? About national boundries for markets and labour eroding ?

The amount of free public space to discuss issues was reduced, and replaced with cheap buyable space.

I think we will just own shares in each other most likely. If you need credit you just issue your own bonds and auction them off on the NCB website. Youll make the same argument to the public as you currently do to the bank, and if people judge your endevour to be worthy, and you are a good credit risk then they will buy your shares, or take them as trade for the things you need for your endevour.

How about a form of money that tracks things you do for free ? That's my idea.

[dre]

Close but no cigar. There was always money, influence, and vote buying... what made it worse ? IMO it was the value of the vote coming down to the point where influence could be bought en masse.

Why did they care so much about taxes coming down ? About corporations getting more power ? About national boundries for markets and labour eroding ?

The amount of free public space to discuss issues was reduced, and replaced with cheap buyable space.

How about a form of money that tracks things you do for free ? That's my idea.

There was always money, influence, and vote buying... what made it worse ? IMO it was the value of the vote coming down to the point where influence could be bought en masse.

There was always money in the system, but the ammount of it exploded. The corporate lobby as it is today is a brand new animal. Again its a matter of degree.

And the influence in a vote has only declined RELATIVELY to these other vehicles to which influence is attached.

The amount of free public space to discuss issues was reduced, and replaced with cheap buyable space.

Exactly. Not only did they buy influence but they purchased much of the very medium that public relies on to inform their votes and discuss these issues. Thats part of what im talking about, not an alternate theory.

Again... this is just a brilliant, and well funded project. They did exactly what they should have done, exactly what we should expect them to do, and they did a very good job at it. They were effective advocates for themselves, and we were not.

[dre]

How about a form of money that tracks things you do for free ? That's my idea.

Can you flesh that out a little bit more? Even 20-30 words to help me understand the basic concept?

[Guest Manny]

Can you flesh that out a little bit more? Even 20-30 words to help me understand the basic concept?

Simple, a microchip implanted in the hand or forehead, which enables you to buy or sell things goods and services. This biometric chip can also store important personal information, like name, and SIN number...

[Michael Hardner]

Again... this is just a brilliant, and well funded project. They did exactly what they should have done, exactly what we should expect them to do, and they did a very good job at it. They were effective advocates for themselves, and we were not.

Ok, well now the next question - how will this work after television advertising collapses ?

[Jack Weber]

Simple, a microchip implanted in the hand or forehead, which enables you to buy or sell things goods and services. This biometric chip can also store important personal information, like name, and SIN number...

Uh oh...Getting cryptically biblical with a devout aetheist is a recipe for thread drift...

[Michael Hardner]

Can you flesh that out a little bit more? Even 20-30 words to help me understand the basic concept?

Digital kharma... If I do something for you, you pay me in kharma and nothing else.

Barter needs to be filed with the tax department, not favours.

[eyeball]

Simple, a microchip implanted in the hand or forehead, which enables you to buy or sell things goods and services. This biometric chip can also store important personal information, like name, and SIN number...

I was going to suggest some sort of power bar that indicates how much you're worth or not worth as the case may be.

When you bottom out it's off to the soylent vats.

[dre]

I was going to suggest some sort of power bar that indicates how much you're worth or not worth as the case may be.

When you bottom out it's off to the soylent vats.

No when you bottom out you increase production and reduce consumption. Have no credit is exactly what some people need. If you have a negative balance of trade the very worst thing you can do to yourself is borrow money. Every cent you borrow is a future claim on your production and on your labor.

And I dont think we need chips in our heads. We already have the bits and pieces required to automate the entire system. All you need to do is log onto the secure NCB website, and find out how much credit you qualify for based what you produce and how much.

[dre]

Ok, well now the next question - how will this work after television advertising collapses ?

Im not sure any one medium is that important. Providers that traditionally provide television content are already expanding into other mediums. They can still sell advertising if they put their content on the web, or in a magazine and thats exactly what they do.

[Michael Hardner]

Im not sure any one medium is that important. Providers that traditionally provide television content are already expanding into other mediums.

"Media"

It is important.

[dre]

"Media"

It is important.

Ok, why wont the same companies just move the same content onto the internet if television becomes irrelevant and sell advertising to the same folks?

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, why wont the same companies just move the same content onto the internet if television becomes irrelevant and sell advertising to the same folks?

Which TV networks started eBay, Google, facebook ... should I go on ?