 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
alva
|
 |
Republic of Flanders
Sep 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
Vel : nice post nd you won't hear any 'I don't agree's from this side' (at least not in spirit of the post).
quote:
(IMO, the best example of this resides in Canada, but Europe has some highly attractive models too, and America is slowly shifting in that direction as well). |
How does the Canadian model work btw. I have a vague notion of it but really don't know anything about it.
-
So America is going socialist too héy, tssk tssk tssk 
quote:
capitalism requires private ownership, so it has rejected the notion of the state controlling everything, |
The latest trend/line of thought here is to keep certain area's state controlled (or try to buy them back, even against european regulations. It's not going to happen soon though).
An example would be mass-transportation which has almost proved not to be working under private contract. (Look at britains train system.)
I'm certainly not against those being state controlled as they are supposed to be providing a service and not to make profit.
If you can do both, even better of course.
-
The one thing I don't really agree with are the sweatshopps though
quote:
which is why, going back to the earlier example of the sweatshops in SE Asia, the answer is in strengthening the laws in those countries, not tearing down the system). |
By strenghtening their laws, they would throw their only good card they have away, they nothing else to offer, no infrastructure, no skilled labour.
All they have is cheap labour.
You can't ask them to do something about it, however, the compagnies can, but why would they.
But this isn't really part of the discussion, so..
Anyway, good thread 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
Did anyone mention that the net profits should be shared between the investors or the company and the workforce 51:49 (without the directors taking the whole 49%  ), just distribute equally among all the workers what was left, CEO and someone who has been employed for 12 months lets say, both get the same share of that part (everything else stays the same, management bonuses payment structure, divdends etc...) Noone looses, that would be investment into the compay, many companies have profit share schemes, I just feel they are too low in overall scheme of things.
that is about all that I would change (for the companies listed on the stock market only, like one of the requirements...
That's all, investors would still be able to make good returns, and I am pretty certain it would not wipe out the benefits of listing on the stock exchange.
That's about it, a lot of the workforce would be much better off, and you would inject more spending capital into the society...
well this might be shallow and it will never happen, but somehow I like the idea as I don't think that most of the capital accumulated is efficiently spent, or to say that it would be better for the society overall if the workforce would get 49% of the pie per quater (or year) for listed companies 
not to mention that it would seriously address the differences in payment structures for the offices in third world countries, it would be a great driver for a more economically balanced world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Alva: Yep, it feels like we're really covering some good ground in this, our third thread on the topic!
With regards to sweatshops...yes and no. Consider that the companies in question have invested heavily IN those countries (the physical plant obviously cannot be moved, and although the physical equipment can be relocated, that, on top of the training expense for a new crop of workers AND the construction of a new facility to house it all would make it prohibitively expensive to do so.
Plus the fact that the wage protection need not be implemented in one step. A phased approach would generally work best (and also consider that the cost of living in these countries is dramatically lower, such that two dollars an hour in the states would be a criminal wage, while that same two bucks an hour in some SE Asian nations would be QUITE well to do!
Kid: And those numbers help your argument....how exactly? Given that there is no indication what percentage of the households in your figures have two wage earners, I don't see how any strong conclusions can be drawn from them, save for the fact that household-by-household, we already are above the 30k threshold you specified.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
There is such a thing as simply cutting your losses, Kid.
YOU laid down the ground rules by saying that individual experiences or situations were invalid to the argument. We complied and stopped using them, going instead after information as it pertained to the "whole group" (your call, remember?)
And now, having lost ground in the debate and in a scramble to try and prove your point, you reverse yourself by talking about "individual" situations.
Which is it to be? I'll play the game either way you want, but at least have the good graces to be consistent!
|
You obviously have a certain type of intelligence, and I'm not very articulate, but I find it hard to believe that you don't know what the difference is.
I wasn't using the experience of one individual in my argumment. I was using the term individual to describe the statistic. I really don't know how to explain the difference by saying anything that I haven't already said.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, and btw, here's another golden pair of quotes from you:
I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.
and then, when THAT didn't work out....
I'm not claiming to know the exact amount that would be affordable.
|
Those are not contradictory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
Here's a report by the Dept of Public Advocacy.
The Economy-Crime Rate Connection and Its Effect on DPA Caseloads: Does Crime Pay When the Market Doesn't?
From the report
The notion that the crime rate in a country is affected by the state of its economy has a common-sense appeal to most individuals.... According to this instinctual approach and most of the "economic" models of criminology, a flagging economy leads to more joblessness, less money for charity and "safety net" programs, and greater difficulty for individuals trying to find or maintain income to sustain the basic needs of their families. As a result, those individuals will more likely turn to criminal activity as a means of income for these basic needs, since the benefit of lawful activity no longer outweighs the risks of criminal activity (these risks, such as injury at the hands of a potential victim, incarceration, social and familial pressures against crime, etc., are viewed as the "costs" of criminal activity in the economic models).
the majority of recent scholarly analysis has found that crime rates are directly related to the economy.
In their paper, "Crime Rates and Local Market Opportunities in the United States: 1979-1997," Gould, Weinberg, and Mustard concluded that both wages and unemployment are significantly related to crime, with wages having the stronger effect.
In their first paper on "Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime," Raphael and Winter-Ebmer found that the conventional wisdom on the effects of unemployment on crime (i.e., a direct relationship _ higher unemployment leads to higher crime and lower unemployment leads to lower crime) actually underestimates these effects.
A decrease in income and potential earnings associated with involuntary unemployment increases the relative returns to illegal activity. Moreover, workers who experience chronic joblessness have less to lose by arrest and incarceration. Unemployment is an important determinant of the supply of criminal offenders and hence, the overall crime rate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2003 02:14
)
|